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 submitted on 09/06/2024 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 9, 11 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 6 of claim 5, replace “the user device” with -- the device --; same applied to claim 16;
On line 4 of claim 9, replace “the plurality” with -- a plurality --; same applies to claims 12 and 20;
On line 4 of claim 11, replace “additional data” with -- second additional data --;
On line 6 of claim 16, replace “the data” with -- data --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hakanson et al. (US 20190320444 A1).
Consider claim 1, Hakanson discloses a system (read as frequency division duplex (FDD) base station 510B with integrated automated interference mitigation device 540, implemented as device 640, which uses hardware processor 642, memory 644 and interference mitigation software code 646 to perform the automated interference mitigation operation of flowchart 760, figures 5B, 6 and 7, par [0047] and [0050]-[0053]), comprising:
at least one antenna configured to receive wireless signals, the antenna being associated with a wireless network (read as transmit and receive antenna 512 of base station 510B receiving uplink transmission signals 104a and 104b from user equipment in frequency division duplex wireless network 100, figure 5A and 5B, par [0040], [0042] and [0047]);
at least one processor (read as hardware processor 642 od device 640 (automated interference mitigation device 540), figures 5B and 6, par [0050]-[0051]); and
at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one memory having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to (read as memory 644 storing interference mitigation software code 646, which hardware processor 642 executes to perform the operation of flowchart 760, figures 6 and 7, par [0050]-[0053]):
receive, at the at least one antenna, a first wireless signal (read as antenna 512 and radio equipment 514 receiving uplink transmission signal 104a and 104b form user equipment, after which action 761 processes that same received transmission signal, figures 5B and 7, par [0042] and [0054]);
receive an indication that the first wireless signal has experienced interference (read as digital signal processor 534 generating action 761 data identifying that uplink transmission signal 104a or 104b is affected by an interfering signal and passing that data to analysis unit 536; reception of the action 761 data provides the interference indication concerning the same received signal, figures 5A and 7, par [0046], [0054] and [0056]);
determine whether the interference experienced by the first wireless signal is internal interference or external interference (read as action 763 determining whether the identified interfering signal is passive intermodulation (PIM) distortion produced from the base station’s own downlink transmissions in its receive path, which reasonably corresponds to interference originating within (internal) the wireless network (par [0031]-[0032]); action 765 determining whether the interfering signal originates from a foreign transmitter external to frequency division duplex wireless network 100, figure 7, par [0081] and [0086]); and
cause the interference to be mitigated based on the determination of whether the interference is internal interference or external interference (read as selecting mitigation according to the source determination: action 764 changes downlink power or frequency range when interfering signal is identified as PIM distortion (par [0064]); action 766 selectively schedules uplink transmissions away from the interfering signal when the signal is identified as external to the wireless network, figure 7, par [0082]).
Consider claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, Hakanson, discloses wherein the interference is determined to be internal based on an indication that a cause of the interference is associated with the wireless network (read as interference mitigation software code 646 identifying PIM when the received uplink signal correlates with a PIM model derived from the base station’s own downlink transmission; the correlation indicates that the disturbance originates from the base station transmission path within wireless network 100, which corresponds to internal cause, figure 7, par [0032], [0057] and [0062]-[0063]).
Consider claim 3, as applied to claim 1 above, Hakanson, discloses wherein the interference is determined to be external based on an indication that a cause of the interference is not associated with the wireless network 9rad as interference mitigation software code 646 determining that the interfering signal originates from a foreign transmitter external to the wireless network 100; identifying the outside source provides the indication that the cause is not associated with the wireless network, figure 7 with action 765, par [0081]).
Consider claim 9, as applied to claim 1 above, Hakanson, discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor to cause the interference to be mitigated, further cause the system to: identify one or more frequency bands that are affected by the interference; and cause at least a portion of the plurality of devices to stop using the one or more frequency bands that are affected by the interference (read as action 761 identifying the uplink frequency spectrum affected by an interfering signal and scheduler 218 or 518 assigning at least one transmission from UE 102a or UE 102B to other specific frequencies; the reassignment causes the selected UE not to use the affected frequency portion during its scheduled uplink transmission, figure 7, par [0054], [0082] and [0084]-[0085]).
Consider claim 10, Hakanson discloses a method in a radio base station associated with a wireless network (read as base station 510B, in frequency division duplex wireless network 100, with integrated automated interference mitigation device 540, implemented as device 640, which uses hardware processor 642, memory 644 and interference mitigation software code 646 to perform the automated interference mitigation operation of flowchart 760, figures 5B, 6 and 7, par [0047] and [0050]-[0053]), the method comprising:
receiving a first signal (read as antenna 512 and radio equipment 514 receiving uplink transmission signal 104a and 104b form user equipment, after which action 761 processes that same received transmission signal, figures 5B and 7, par [0042] and [0054]);
receiving an indication that the first signal is affected by interference (read as digital signal processor 534 generating action 761 data identifying that uplink transmission signal 104a or 104b is affected by an interfering signal and passing that data to analysis unit 536; reception of the action 761 data provides the interference indication concerning the same received signal, figures 5A and 7, par [0046], [0054] and [0056]);
determining whether the interference that affected the first signal is internal interference or external interference (read as action 763 determining whether the identified interfering signal is passive intermodulation (PIM) distortion produced from the base station’s own downlink transmissions in its receive path, which reasonably corresponds to interference originating within (internal) the wireless network (par [0031]-[0032]); action 765 determining whether the interfering signal originates from a foreign transmitter external to frequency division duplex wireless network 100, figure 7, par [0081] and [0086]); and
causing the interference to be mitigated based on the determination of whether the interference is internal interference or external interference (read as selecting mitigation according to the source determination: action 764 changes downlink power or frequency range when interfering signal is identified as PIM distortion (par [0064]); action 766 selectively schedules uplink transmissions away from the interfering signal when the signal is identified as external to the wireless network, figure 7, par [0082]).
Consider claim 12, as applied to claim 10 above, Hakanson, discloses wherein causing the interference to be mitigated based on the determination of whether the interference is internal interference or external interference further comprises: identifying one or more frequency bands that are affected by the interference; and causing at least a portion of the plurality of devices to stop using the one or more frequency bands that are affected by the interference (read as action 761 identifying the uplink frequency spectrum affected by an interfering signal and scheduler 218 or 518 assigning at least one transmission from UE 102a or UE 102B to other specific frequencies; the reassignment causes the selected UE not to use the affected frequency portion during its scheduled uplink transmission, figure 7, par [0054], [0082] and [0084]-[0085]).
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 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.
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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 6-8, 11, 13-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakanson et al. (US 20190320444 A1) in view of Abdelmonem (US 20190052381 A1).
Consider claim 4, as applied to claim 1 above, Hakanson, discloses wherein the indication that the first wireless signal has experienced interference is based on power level of the interfering signal (read as determines the uplink power level of the interfering signal in action 762 before determining whether the signal is external to the wireless network and applying the corresponding mitigation, figure 7, par [0056] and [0081]-[0082]) but does not specifically disclose based on determination that a power level of the first wireless signal has exceeded a threshold power range.
Nonetheless, Abdelmonem discloses adaptive power threshold control with comparison, including front end module 56 measuring signal power across the scanned spectrum and calculating threshold 602 (par [0125] and [0128]); a spectrum component whose measured power rises above threshold 602 is considered as interference; threshold 602 defines the upper boundary of the acceptable measurement power intervale, which corresponds to the threshold power range, figures 16 and 17, par [0106].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Abdelmonem into the teachings of Hakanson, to configure Hakanson’s action 762 inrefering signal power measurement using Abdelmonem’s adaptive power threshold control with comparison, in order to increase confidence that action 765 classifies an actual interference before proceeding with corresponding mitigation, which reduce the risk of acting on a noninterfering signal (see par [0106] of Abdelmonem).
Consider claim 6, as applied to claim 1 above, Hakanson discloses the wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to: identify interfering signal from a foreign transmitter and schedules uplink transmission around that signal (figure 7, par [0081] and [0082]) but does not specifically disclose receive first additional data indicating one or more of: weather data; one or more periods of time in which the at least one antenna received a signal which exceeded the threshold power range; an indication of one or more hardware faults associated with at least one network component included in the wireless network; an indication of one or more alarms associated with at least one network fault in the wireless network; an indication of one or more cabling issues associated with the wireless network; and an indication of one or more known sources of external interference; and predict, based on the first additional data and the determination of whether the first wireless signal has caused internal interference or external interference, a cause of interference associated with the first wireless signal.
Nonetheless, Abdelmonem discloses a diagnostic system receiving detected spectral data and accessing a database of known interferers whose profiles identify source type, manufacture, model number, timing, frequency and severity; matching the detected profile to a stored profile determines the likely interference identify; when classifies the signal as external, the profile match determines or predicts the particular cause for the sequential interference mitigation when the interference mitigation operation continues from the known source data and the internal or external determination, par [0084]-[0085] and [0132]-[0133].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Abdelmonem into the teachings of Hakanson, to configure Hakanson’s source classification using Abdelmonem’s known interferer profile comparison, in order to refine the broad external classification into an identified likely source suitable for a source targeted corrective action/remedy (see par [0084]-[0085] of Abdelmonem).
Consider claim 7, as applied to claim 1 above, Hakanson, discloses the claimed invention above with wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor to cause the interference to be mitigated, further cause the system to: identify interfering signal from a foreign transmitter and schedules uplink transmission around that signal (figure 7, par [0081] and [0082]) but does not specifically disclose identify, based on the predicted cause of the interference, one or more entities that are able to remedy the cause of the interference; and cause a message to be transmitted to at least one entity of the one or more entities instructing the at least one entity to remedy the cause of the interference.
Nonetheless, Abdelmonem discloses a diagnostic system identifying an interferer from detected spectral data and known interferer profiles and the matched profile determines or predicts the particular cause for the sequential interference mitigation when the interference mitigation operation continues from known source data and the internal or external determination, selecting the base station communicating with the interferer as an entity able to remedy the predicted/identified cause, and directing the base station to instruct the interfering device to move to another channel, which includes transmitting and corresponds to remedial control instruction, par [0084]-[0085] and [0132]-[0133].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Abdelmonem into the teachings of Hakanson, to configure Hakanson’s external interference response using Abdelmonem’s interferer identification and base station control messaging, in order to remove an identified interfering device through infrastructure already controlling its channel assignment (see par [0132]-[0133] of Abdelmonem).
Consider claim 8, as applied to claim 7 above, Hakanson, as modified by Abdelmonem, discloses the claimed invention above but does not specifically disclose discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor to cause the message to be transmitted to at least one entity of the one or more entities, further cause the system to: receive second additional data indicating a current load of the wireless network; determine a measure of priority for remedying the cause of the interference based on at least the second additional data and the cause of the interference; and cause the interference to be mitigated based on the measure of the priority.
Nonetheless, Abdelmonem further discloses traffic aware mitigation priority, in which source specific interferer report and resource block analysis provide interferer identity, severity, traffic information and current traffic utilization (par [0132] and [0140]); its priority scheme ranks mitigation using interferer characteristics and network traffic impact and allocates limited resource to the highest priority interference, which corresponds to the measure of the priority, par [0130]-[0131].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Abdelmonem into the teachings of Hakanson, which modified by Abdelmonem, to configure Hakanson’s source responsive mitigation technique using Abdelmonem’s source specific and traffic aware priority scheme, in order to direct limited mitigation resources first to the identified interference cause producing the greatest current impact on network traffic (see par [0130]-[0131] of Abdelmonem).
Consider claim 11, as applied to claim 10 above, Hakanson, as modified by Abdelmonem, discloses the claimed invention above but doe s not specifically disclose discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor to cause the message to be transmitted to at least one entity of the one or more entities, further cause the system to: receive second additional data indicating a current load of the wireless network; determine a measure of priority for remedying the cause of the interference based on at least the second additional data and the cause of the interference; and cause the interference to be mitigated based on the measure of the priority.
Nonetheless, Abdelmonem further discloses traffic aware mitigation priority, in which source specific interferer report and resource block analysis provide interferer identity, severity, traffic information and current traffic utilization (par [0132] and [0140]); its priority scheme ranks mitigation using interferer characteristics and network traffic impact and allocates limited resource to the highest priority interference, which corresponds to the measure of the priority, par [0130]-[0131].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Abdelmonem into the teachings of Hakanson, which modified by Abdelmonem, to configure Hakanson’s source responsive mitigation technique using Abdelmonem’s source specific and traffic aware priority scheme, in order to direct limited mitigation resources first to the identified interference cause producing the greatest current impact on network traffic (see par [0130]-[0131] of Abdelmonem).
Consider claim 13, as applied to claim 10 above, Hakanson, as modified by Abdelmonem, discloses the claimed invention above and wherein causing the interference to be mitigated based on the determination of whether the interference is internal interference or external interference further comprises: determine whether the interference experienced by the first wireless signal is internal interference or external interference (read as action 763 determining whether the identified interfering signal is passive intermodulation (PIM) distortion produced from the base station’s own downlink transmissions in its receive path, which reasonably corresponds to interference originating within (internal) the wireless network (par [0031]-[0032]); action 765 determining whether the interfering signal originates from a foreign transmitter external to frequency division duplex wireless network 100, figure 7, par [0081] and [0086]) and identify the cause is external/foreign as above but does not specifically disclose identifying one or more entities that are able to remedy the cause of the interference; and causing a message to be transmitted to at least one entity of the one or more entities instructing the at least one entity to remedy the cause of the interference.
Nonetheless, Abdelmonem discloses a diagnostic system identifying an interferer from detected spectral data and known interferer profiles, selecting the base station communicating with the interferer as an entity able to remedy the identified cause, and directing the base station to instruct the interfering device to move to another channel, which includes transmitting and corresponds to remedial control instruction, par [0132]-[0133].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Abdelmonem into the teachings of Hakanson, to configure Hakanson’s external interference response using Abdelmonem’s interferer identification and base station control messaging, in order to remove an identified interfering device through infrastructure already controlling its channel assignment (see par [0132]-[0133] of Abdelmonem).
Consider claim 14, Hakanson discloses a system (read as base station 510B with integrated automated interference mitigation device 540, implemented as device 640, which uses hardware processor 642, memory 644 and interference mitigation software code 646 to perform the automated interference mitigation operation of flowchart 760, figures 5B, 6 and 7, par [0047] and [0050]-[0053]), comprising:
at least one antenna configured to receive wireless signals, the antenna being associated with a wireless network (read as transmit and receive antenna 512 of base station 510B receiving uplink transmission signals 104a and 104b from user equipment in frequency division duplex wireless network 100, figure 5A and 5B, par [0040], [0042] and [0047]);
at least one processor (read as hardware processor 642 od device 640 (automated interference mitigation device 540), figures 5B and 6, par [0050]-[0051]); and
at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one memory having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to (read as memory 644 storing interference mitigation software code 646, which hardware processor 642 executes to perform the operation of flowchart 760, figures 6 and 7, par [0050]-[0053]):
receive, at the at least one antenna, a first wireless signal (read as antenna 512 and radio equipment 514 receiving uplink transmission signal 104a and 104b form user equipment, after which action 761 processes that same received transmission signal, figures 5B and 7, par [0042] and [0054]);
receive an indication that the first wireless signal has experienced interference (read as digital signal processor 534 generating action 761 data identifying that uplink transmission signal 104a or 104b is affected by an interfering signal and passing that data to analysis unit 536; reception of the action 761 data provides the interference indication concerning the same received signal, figures 5A and 7, par [0046], [0054] and [0056]);
determine whether the interference experienced by the first wireless signal is internal interference or external interference (read as action 763 determining whether the identified interfering signal is passive intermodulation (PIM) distortion produced from the base station’s own downlink transmissions in its receive path, which reasonably corresponds to interference originating within (internal) the wireless network (par [0031]-[0032]); action 765 determining whether the interfering signal originates from a foreign transmitter external to frequency division duplex wireless network 100, figure 7, par [0081] and [0086]); and
cause the interference to be mitigated based on the determination of whether the interference is internal interference or external interference (read as selecting mitigation according to the source determination: action 764 changes downlink power or frequency range when interfering signal is identified as PIM distortion (par [0064]); action 766 selectively schedules uplink transmissions away from the interfering signal when the signal is identified as external to the wireless network, figure 7, par [0082]).
However, Hakanson discloses the claimed invention above with the indication that the first wireless signal has experienced interference based on power level of the interfering signal (read as determines the uplink power level of the interfering signal in action 762 before determining whether the signal is external to the wireless network and applying the corresponding mitigation, figure 7, par [0056] and [0081]-[0082]) but does not specifically disclose the indication as in response to a power level of the first signal exceeding a threshold power range.
Nonetheless, Abdelmonem discloses adaptive power threshold control with comparison, including front end module 56 measuring signal power across the scanned spectrum and calculating threshold 602 (par [0125] and [0128]); a spectrum component whose measured power rises above threshold 602 is considered as interference; threshold 602 defines the upper boundary of the acceptable measurement power intervale, which corresponds to the threshold power range, figures 16 and 17, par [0106].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Abdelmonem into the teachings of Hakanson, to configure Hakanson’s action 762 inrefering signal power measurement using Abdelmonem’s adaptive power threshold control with comparison, in order to increase confidence that action 765 classifies an actual interference before proceeding with corresponding mitigation, which reduce the risk of acting on a noninterfering signal (see par [0106] of Abdelmonem).
Consider claim 15, as applied to claim 14 above, Hakanson, as modified by Abdelmonem, discloses wherein the wireless network is a cellular telecommunication network and the at least one antenna is an antenna in a radio base station of the wireless network (read as FDD wireless network 100 as a fourth-generation Long Term Evolution or fifth-generation cellular network, the antenna 112 or 512 as the transmit and receive antenna of radio base station 110 or corresponding base station 510B within the network, figures 1, 5A and 5B, par [0019]-[0020], [0040] and [0047]).
Consider claim 17, as applied to claim 14 above, Hakanson, as modified by Abdelmonem, discloses the wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to: identify interfering signal from a foreign transmitter and schedules uplink transmission around that signal (figure 7, par [0081] and [0082]) but does not specifically disclose receive first additional data indicating one or more of: weather data; one or more periods of time in which the at least one antenna received a signal which exceeded the threshold power range; an indication of one or more hardware faults associated with at least one network component included in the wireless network; an indication of one or more alarms associated with at least one network fault in the wireless network; an indication of one or more cabling issues associated with the wireless network; and an indication of one or more known sources of external interference; and predict, based on the first additional data and the determination of whether the first signal has caused internal interference or external interference, a cause of interference associated with the first signal.
Nonetheless, Abdelmonem discloses a diagnostic system receiving detected spectral data and accessing a database of known interferers whose profiles identify source type, manufacture, model number, timing, frequency and severity; matching the detected profile to a stored profile determines the likely interference identify; when classifies the signal as external, the profile match determines or predicts the particular cause for the sequential interference mitigation when the interference mitigation operation continues from the known source data and the internal or external determination, par [0084]-[0085] and [0132]-[0133].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Abdelmonem into the teachings of Hakanson, to configure Hakanson’s source classification using Abdelmonem’s known interferer profile comparison, in order to refine the broad external classification into an identified likely source suitable for a source targeted corrective action/remedy (see par [0084]-[0085] of Abdelmonem).
Consider claim 18, as applied to claim 17 above, Hakanson, as modified by Abdelmonem, discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor to cause the interference to be mitigated, further cause the system to: identify interfering signal from a foreign transmitter and schedules uplink transmission around that signal (figure 7, par [0081] and [0082]) but does not specifically disclose identify, based on the predicted cause of the interference, one or more entities that are able to remedy the cause of the interference; and cause a message to be transmitted to at least one entity of the one or more entities instructing the at least one entity to remedy the cause of the interference.
Nonetheless, Abdelmonem discloses a diagnostic system identifying an interferer from detected spectral data and known interferer profiles and the matched profile determines or predicts the particular cause for the sequential interference mitigation when the interference mitigation operation continues from known source data and the internal or external determination, selecting the base station communicating with the interferer as an entity able to remedy the predicted/identified cause, and directing the base station to instruct the interfering device to move to another channel, which includes transmitting and corresponds to remedial control instruction, par [0084]-[0085] and [0132]-[0133].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Abdelmonem into the teachings of Hakanson, which modified by Abdelmonem, to configure Hakanson’s external interference response using Abdelmonem’s interferer identification and base station control messaging, in order to remove an identified interfering device through infrastructure already controlling its channel assignment (see par [0132]-[0133] of Abdelmonem).
Consider claim 19, as applied to claim 18 above, Hakanson, as modified by Abdelmonem, discloses the claimed invention above but does not specifically disclose discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor to cause the message to be transmitted to at least one entity of the one or more entities, further cause the system to: receive second additional data indicating a current load of the wireless network; determine a measure of priority for remedying the cause of the interference based on at least the second additional data and the cause of the interference; and cause the interference to be mitigated based on the measure of the priority.
Nonetheless, Abdelmonem further discloses traffic aware mitigation priority, in which source specific interferer report and resource block analysis provide interferer identity, severity, traffic information and current traffic utilization (par [0132] and [0140]); its priority scheme ranks mitigation using interferer characteristics and network traffic impact and allocates limited resource to the highest priority interference, which corresponds to the measure of the priority, par [0130]-[0131].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Abdelmonem into the teachings of Hakanson, which modified by Abdelmonem, to configure Hakanson’s source responsive mitigation technique using Abdelmonem’s source specific and traffic aware priority scheme, in order to direct limited mitigation resources first to the identified interference cause producing the greatest current impact on network traffic (see par [0130]-[0131] of Abdelmonem).
Consider claim 20, as applied to claim 14 above, Hakanson, as modified by Abdelmonem, discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor to cause the interference to be mitigated, further cause the system to: identify one or more frequency bands that are affected by the interference; and cause at least a portion of the plurality of user devices to stop using the one or more frequency bands that are affected by the interference (read as action 761 identifying the uplink frequency spectrum affected by an interfering signal and scheduler 218 or 518 assigning at least one transmission from UE 102a or UE 102B to other specific frequencies; the reassignment causes the selected UE not to use the affected frequency portion during its scheduled uplink transmission, figure 7, par [0054], [0082] and [0084]-[0085]).
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakanson et al. (US 20190320444 A1) in view of Ghosh et al. (US 20200043348 A1).
Consider claim 5, as applied to claim 1 above, Hakanson, discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor to determine whether the interference experienced by the first wireless signal is internal interference or external interference, further cause the system to: determine whether the interference experienced by the first wireless signal is internal interference or external interference (read as digital signal processor 534 generating action 761 data identifying that uplink transmission signal 104a or 104b is affected by an interfering signal and passing that data to analysis unit 536; reception of the action 761 data provides the interference indication concerning the same received signal, figures 5A and 7, par [0046], [0054] and [0056]; and action 763 determining whether the identified interfering signal is passive intermodulation (PIM) distortion produced from the base station’s own downlink transmissions in its receive path, which reasonably corresponds to interference originating within (internal) the wireless network (par [0031]-[0032]); action 765 determining whether the interfering signal originates from a foreign transmitter external to frequency division duplex wireless network 100, figure 7, par [0081] and [0086]) but does not specifically disclose receive a location of a device that transmitted the first wireless signal; and the determination is based on the location of the user device.
Nonetheless, Ghosh discloses location-conditioned received power verification, in which receivers 602 receiving a wireless signal from a transmitting unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that represents the vehicle’s reported position; processor 604 determines the position and the measured received power of the wireless signal (figures 6 and 7, par [0101]-[0103]); the processor predicts received power from the position of the transmitting device and the position of the receiver 602 (par [0118]), then compare the measured and predicted power values using a predetermined permitted difference (par [0121]); the predicted power and permitted difference provide data defining a location-dependent acceptable power range, and measured power above the upper boundary of the acceptable power range corresponds to exceed a threshold power range (par [0101], [0118] and [0121]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ghosh into the teachings of Hakanson, to configure interference and cause determination using Ghosh’s predicted power range with reported location, in order to account for distance dependent path loss before treating received power as interference, reducing erroneous triggers caused by normal propagation variation (see par [0095] and [0101]) of Ghosh).
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakanson et al. (US 20190320444 A1) in view of Abdelmonem (US 20190052381 A1), and in further view of Ghosh et al. (US 20200043348 A1).
Consider claim 16, as applied to claim 14 above, Hakanson, as modified by Abdelmonem, discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor to determine whether the power level of the first signal exceeds the threshold power range for signals received by the at least one antenna, further cause the system to: determine whether the power level of the first signal exceeds the threshold power range for signals received by the at least one antenna based on the data indicating the threshold power range (read as adaptive power threshold control with comparison, including front end module 56 measuring signal power across the scanned spectrum and calculating threshold 602 (par [0125] and [0128]); a spectrum component whose measured power rises above threshold 602 is considered as interference; threshold 602 defines the upper boundary of the acceptable measurement power intervale, which corresponds to the threshold power range, figures 16 and 17, par [0106] of Abdelmonem) but does not specifically disclose receive a location of a device that transmitted the first signal; and determine whether the power level of the first signal exceeds the threshold power range for signals received and the location of the user device.
Nonetheless, Ghosh discloses location-conditioned received power verification, in which receivers 602 receiving a wireless signal from a transmitting unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that represents the vehicle’s reported position; processor 604 determines the position and the measured received power of the wireless signal (figures 6 and 7, par [0101]-[0103]); the processor predicts received power from the position of the transmitting device and the position of the receiver 602 (par [0118]), then compare the measured and predicted power values using a predetermined permitted difference (par [0121]); the predicted power and permitted difference provide data defining a location-dependent acceptable power range, and measured power above the upper boundary of the acceptable power range corresponds to exceed a threshold power range (par [0101], [0118] and [0121]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ghosh into the teachings of Hakanson, which modified by Abdelmonem, to configure the received power threshold comparison using Ghosh’s predicted power range with reported location, in order to account for distance dependent path loss before treating received power as interference, reducing erroneous triggers caused by normal propagation variation (see par [0095] and [0101]) of Ghosh).
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,113,561. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the conflicting claims anticipates the instant claims as follows:
Consider claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,561 discloses a system, comprising: at least one antenna configured to receive wireless signals, the antenna being associated with a wireless network; at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one memory having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: receive, at the at least one antenna, a first wireless signal; receive an indication that the first wireless signal has experienced interference; determine whether the interference experienced by the first wireless signal is internal interference or external interference; and cause the interference to be mitigated based on the determination of whether the interference is internal interference or external interference (see claims 1 and 5).
Consider claim 2, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,561 discloses wherein the interference is determined to be internal based on an indication that a cause of the interference is associated with the wireless network (see claims 1 and 5).
Consider claim 3, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,561 discloses wherein the interference is determined to be external based on an indication that a cause of the interference is not associated with the wireless network (see claims 1 and 5).
Consider claim 4, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,561 discloses wherein the indication that the first wireless signal has experienced interference is based on a determination that a power level of the first wireless signal has exceeded a threshold power range (see claims 1 and 5).
Consider claim 5, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,561 discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor to determine whether the interference experienced by the first wireless signal is internal interference or external interference, further cause the system to: receive a location of a device that transmitted the first wireless signal; and determine whether the interference experienced by the first wireless signal is internal interference or external interference based on the location of the user device (see claims 1 and 4).
Consider claim 6, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,561 discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to: receive first additional data indicating one or more of: weather data; one or more periods of time in which the at least one antenna received a signal which exceeded a threshold power range; an indication of one or more hardware faults associated with at least one network component included in the wireless network; an indication of one or more alarms associated with at least one network fault in the wireless network; an indication of one or more cabling issues associated with the wireless network; and an indication of one or more known sources of external interference; and predict, based on the first additional data and the determination of whether the first wireless signal has experienced internal interference or external interference, a cause of interference associated with the first wireless signal (see claims 1 and 5).
Consider claim 7, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,561 discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor to cause the interference to be mitigated, further cause the system to: identify, based on a predicted cause of the interference, one or more entities that are able to remedy the cause of the interference; and cause a message to be transmitted to at least one entity of the one or more entities instructing the at least one entity to remedy the cause of the interference (see claims 1, 5 and 6).
Consider claim 8, as applied to claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,561 discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor to cause the message to be transmitted to at least one entity of the one or more entities, further cause the system to: receive second additional data indicating a current load of the wireless network; determine a measure of priority for remedying the cause of the interference based on at least the second additional data and the cause of the interference; and cause the interference to be mitigated based on the measure of the priority (see claims 1 and 5-7).
Consider claim 9, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,561 discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor to cause the interference to be mitigated, further cause the system to: identify one or more frequency bands that are affected by the interference; and cause at least a portion of the plurality of devices to stop using the one or more frequency bands that are affected by the interference (see claims 1 and 8).
Consider claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,561 discloses a method in a radio base station associated with a wireless network, the method comprising: receiving a first signal; receiving an indication that the first signal is affected by interference; determining whether the interference that affected the first signal is internal interference or external interference; and causing the interference to be mitigated based on the determination of whether the interference is internal interference or external interference (see claims 1 and 5).
Consider claim 11, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,561 discloses wherein causing the interference to be mitigated based on the determination of whether the interference is internal interference or external interference further comprises: receiving additional data indicating a current load of the wireless network; determining a measure of priority for remedying the cause of the interference based on at least the second additional data and the determination of whether the interference is internal interference or external interference; and causing the interference to be mitigated based on the measure of the priority (see claims 1, 5 and 7).
Consider claim 12, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,561 discloses wherein causing the interference to be mitigated based on the determination of whether the interference is internal interference or external interference further comprises: identifying one or more frequency bands that are affected by the interference; and causing at least a portion of the plurality of devices to stop using the one or more frequency bands that are affected by the interference (see claims 1 and 8).
Consider claim 13, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,561 discloses wherein causing the interference to be mitigated based on the determination of whether the interference is internal interference or external interference further comprises: identifying one or more entities that are able to remedy the cause of the interference based on the determination of whether the interference is internal interference or external interference; and causing a message to be transmitted to at least one entity of the one or more entities instructing the at least one entity to remedy the cause of the interference (see claims 1 and 5-6).
Consider claim 14, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,561 discloses a system, comprising: at least one antenna configured to receive wireless signals, the antenna being associated with a wireless network; at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: receive, via the at least one antenna, a first signal; and in response to a power level of the first signal exceeding a threshold power range: determine whether interference caused by the first signal is internal interference or external interference; and cause the interference to be mitigated based on the determination of whether the interference is internal interference or external interference (see claims 1 and 5).
Consider claim 15, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,561 discloses wherein the wireless network is a cellular telecommunication network and the at least one antenna is an antenna in a radio base station of the wireless network (see claims 1 and 2).
Consider claim 16, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,561 discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor to determine whether the power level of the first signal exceeds the threshold power range for signals received by the at least one antenna, further cause the system to: receive a location of a device that transmitted the first signal; and determine whether the power level of the first signal exceeds the threshold power range for signals received by the at least one antenna based on the data indicating the threshold power range and the location of the user device (see claims 1 and 4).
Consider claim 17, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,561 discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to: receive first additional data indicating one or more of: weather data; one or more periods of time in which the at least one antenna received a signal which exceeded the threshold power range; an indication of one or more hardware faults associated with at least one network component included in the wireless network; an indication of one or more alarms associated with at least one network fault in the wireless network; an indication of one or more cabling issues associated with the wireless network; and an indication of one or more known sources of external interference; and predict, based on the first additional data and the determination of whether the first signal has caused internal interference or external interference, a cause of interference associated with the first signal (see claims 1 and 5).
Consider claim 18, as applied to claim 17, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,561 discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor to cause the interference to be mitigated, further cause the system to: identify, based on the predicted cause of the interference, one or more entities that are able to remedy the cause of the interference; and cause a message to be transmitted to at least one entity of the one or more entities instructing the at least one entity to remedy the cause of the interference (see claims 1 and 5-6).
Consider claim 19, as applied to claim 18, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,561 discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor to cause the message to be transmitted to at least one entity of the one or more entities, further cause the system to: receive second additional data indicating a current load of the wireless network; determine a measure of priority for remedying the cause of the interference based on at least the second additional data and the cause of the interference; and cause the interference to be mitigated based on the measure of the priority (see claims 1 and 5-7).
Consider claim 20, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,561 discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor to cause the interference to be mitigated, further cause the system to: identify one or more frequency bands that are affected by the interference; and cause at least a portion of the plurality of user devices to stop using the one or more frequency bands that are affected by the interference (see claims 1 and 8).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,113,562. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the conflicting claims anticipates the instant claims as follows:
Consider claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,562 discloses a system, comprising: at least one antenna configured to receive wireless signals, the antenna being associated with a wireless network; at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one memory having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: receive, at the at least one antenna, a first wireless signal; receive an indication that the first wireless signal has experienced interference; determine whether the interference experienced by the first wireless signal is internal interference or external interference; and cause the interference to be mitigated based on the determination of whether the interference is internal interference or external interference (see claims 1 and 5).
Consider claim 2, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,562 discloses wherein the interference is determined to be internal based on an indication that a cause of the interference is associated with the wireless network (see claims 1 and 5).
Consider claim 3, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,562 discloses wherein the interference is determined to be external based on an indication that a cause of the interference is not associated with the wireless network (see claims 1 and 5).
Consider claim 4, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,562 discloses wherein the indication that the first wireless signal has experienced interference is based on a determination that a power level of the first wireless signal has exceeded a threshold power range (see claims 1 and 5).
Consider claim 5, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,562 discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor to determine whether the interference experienced by the first wireless signal is internal interference or external interference, further cause the system to: receive a location of a device that transmitted the first wireless signal; and determine whether the interference experienced by the first wireless signal is internal interference or external interference based on the location of the user device (see claims 1 and 4-5).
Consider claim 6, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,562 discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to: receive first additional data indicating one or more of: weather data; one or more periods of time in which the at least one antenna received a signal which exceeded a threshold power range; an indication of one or more hardware faults associated with at least one network component included in the wireless network; an indication of one or more alarms associated with at least one network fault in the wireless network; an indication of one or more cabling issues associated with the wireless network; and an indication of one or more known sources of external interference; and predict, based on the first additional data and the determination of whether the first wireless signal has experienced internal interference or external interference, a cause of interference associated with the first wireless signal (see claims 1 and 5).
Consider claim 7, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,562 discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor to cause the interference to be mitigated, further cause the system to: identify, based on a predicted cause of the interference, one or more entities that are able to remedy the cause of the interference; and cause a message to be transmitted to at least one entity of the one or more entities instructing the at least one entity to remedy the cause of the interference (see claims 1 and 5-6).
Consider claim 8, as applied to claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,562 discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor to cause the message to be transmitted to at least one entity of the one or more entities, further cause the system to: receive second additional data indicating a current load of the wireless network; determine a measure of priority for remedying the cause of the interference based on at least the second additional data and the cause of the interference; and cause the interference to be mitigated based on the measure of the priority (see claims 1 and 5-7).
Consider claim 9, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,562 discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor to cause the interference to be mitigated, further cause the system to: identify one or more frequency bands that are affected by the interference; and cause at least a portion of the plurality of devices to stop using the one or more frequency bands that are affected by the interference (see claims 1 and 8).
Consider claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,562 discloses a method in a radio base station associated with a wireless network, the method comprising: receiving a first signal; receiving an indication that the first signal is affected by interference; determining whether the interference that affected the first signal is internal interference or external interference; and causing the interference to be mitigated based on the determination of whether the interference is internal interference or external interference (see claims 1 and 5).
Consider claim 11, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,562 discloses wherein causing the interference to be mitigated based on the determination of whether the interference is internal interference or external interference further comprises: receiving additional data indicating a current load of the wireless network; determining a measure of priority for remedying the cause of the interference based on at least the second additional data and the determination of whether the interference is internal interference or external interference; and causing the interference to be mitigated based on the measure of the priority (see claims 1, 7 and 9).
Consider claim 12, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,562 discloses wherein causing the interference to be mitigated based on the determination of whether the interference is internal interference or external interference further comprises: identifying one or more frequency bands that are affected by the interference; and causing at least a portion of the plurality of devices to stop using the one or more frequency bands that are affected by the interference (see claims 1 and 8-9).
Consider claim 13, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,562 discloses wherein causing the interference to be mitigated based on the determination of whether the interference is internal interference or external interference further comprises: identifying one or more entities that are able to remedy the cause of the interference based on the determination of whether the interference is internal interference or external interference; and causing a message to be transmitted to at least one entity of the one or more entities instructing the at least one entity to remedy the cause of the interference (see claims 1, 6 and 9).
Consider claim 14, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,562 discloses a system, comprising: at least one antenna configured to receive wireless signals, the antenna being associated with a wireless network; at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: receive, via the at least one antenna, a first signal; and in response to a power level of the first signal exceeding a threshold power range: determine whether interference caused by the first signal is internal interference or external interference; and cause the interference to be mitigated based on the determination of whether the interference is internal interference or external interference (see claims 1 and 5).
Consider claim 15, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,562 discloses wherein the wireless network is a cellular telecommunication network and the at least one antenna is an antenna in a radio base station of the wireless network (see claims 1 and 2).
Consider claim 16, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,562 discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor to determine whether the power level of the first signal exceeds the threshold power range for signals received by the at least one antenna, further cause the system to: receive a location of a device that transmitted the first signal; and determine whether the power level of the first signal exceeds the threshold power range for signals received by the at least one antenna based on the data indicating the threshold power range and the location of the user device (see claims 1 and 4).
Consider claim 17, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,562 discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to: receive first additional data indicating one or more of: weather data; one or more periods of time in which the at least one antenna received a signal which exceeded the threshold power range; an indication of one or more hardware faults associated with at least one network component included in the wireless network; an indication of one or more alarms associated with at least one network fault in the wireless network; an indication of one or more cabling issues associated with the wireless network; and an indication of one or more known sources of external interference; and predict, based on the first additional data and the determination of whether the first signal has caused internal interference or external interference, a cause of interference associated with the first signal (see claims 1 and 5).
Consider claim 18, as applied to claim 17, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,562 discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor to cause the interference to be mitigated, further cause the system to: identify, based on the predicted cause of the interference, one or more entities that are able to remedy the cause of the interference; and cause a message to be transmitted to at least one entity of the one or more entities instructing the at least one entity to remedy the cause of the interference (see claims 1 and 5-6).
Consider claim 19, as applied to claim 18, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,562 discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor to cause the message to be transmitted to at least one entity of the one or more entities, further cause the system to: receive second additional data indicating a current load of the wireless network; determine a measure of priority for remedying the cause of the interference based on at least the second additional data and the cause of the interference; and cause the interference to be mitigated based on the measure of the priority (see claims 1 and 5-7).
Consider claim 20, as applied to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,113,562 discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor to cause the interference to be mitigated, further cause the system to: identify one or more frequency bands that are affected by the interference; and cause at least a portion of the plurality of user devices to stop using the one or more frequency bands that are affected by the interference (see claims 1 and 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Junpeng Chen whose telephone number is (571) 270-1112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., 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, Anthony S Addy can be reached on 571-272-7795. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Junpeng Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights