DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office Action is based on the preliminary amendment filed on 9 December 2024, having claims 32-51 (claims 1-31 were canceled) and drawing figures 1-3 filed on 9 September 2024.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. 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 32-40, 47, and 50-51 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,225 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following rationale:
Claims of the instant application are not patentably distinct from the claims of the patent because they describe the same invention with the minor change that the claims of the instant application are the transmitting side while the claims of the patent are the receiving side.
Claims 32 and 47 are anticipated by claims 1 and 10 of the Patent.
Claim 33 is anticipated by claims 2 and 11 of the Patent.
Claims 34 and 51 are anticipated by claims 3 and 12 of the Patent.
Claim 35 is anticipated by claims 4 and 13 of the Patent.
Claim 36 is anticipated by claims 5 and 14 of the Patent.
Claim 37 is anticipated by claims 6 and 16 of the Patent.
Claims 38 and 50 are anticipated by claims 7 and 17 of the Patent.
Claim 39 is anticipated by claims 8 and 18 of the Patent.
Claim 40 is anticipated by claims 9 and 19 of the Patent.
Specification
4. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The acronyms CBSD, CBRS, IoT, and CBSD-SAS must be defined the first time they are recited in the abstract.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 32-40 and 47 would be allowable upon filing of a Terminal Disclaimer to overcome the double patenting rejection.
6. Claims 48-49 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.
6. Claims 41-46 are allowed. The closest prior art references are Sheriff et al. (US 11,089,6020 B2), Srivastava et al. (US 2021/0136666 A1), and Schwengler et al. (US 2021/0219144 A1).
Sheriff discloses a system wherein CBSDs send a registration request to a SAS, wherein the registration request include parameters that identify the type of CBRS UEs (PAL or GAA devices) are associated with the CBSD (col. 9, lines 10-30). Sheriff discloses a process wherein the CBSD acquires its group type during registration with the SAS, provides the group type to a SON manager, and receive from the SON manager channel utilization information based on the group type (col. 12, lines 14-66).
Srivastava discloses an SAS notifying CBRS-APs which frequency bands or channels to use in the CBRS spectrum for a specific time period [0034]. Upon receipt of a registration response from the SAS, the CBRS APs send a spectrum inquiry, and upon receipt of a spectrum inquiry response from the SAS, the CBRS APs send a grant request for the requested frequency channel(s) [0035].
Schwengler discloses one or more UEs or domain proxy initiating a spectrum grant request wherein access to a frequency range is requested by the UEs or domain proxy from a SAS. The spectrum grant request comprises a plurality of operational parameters including frequency range and maximum EIRP of the CBSD. The SAS may accept the request and grant access to specified frequency range [0036].
7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
For claims 41-46, the prior art fails to teach or render obvious a combination of:
transmit first data representative of a registration request to a spectrum access server (SAS), the first data representative of the registration request comprising at least a radio type parameter indicating that the CBSD requires less than a conventional spectrum grant;
transmit second data representative of a spectrum inquiry request to check whether spectrum is available;
receive third data originating from the SAS, the third data indicating that the spectrum is available;
based on the third data, transmit fourth data representative of a grant request, the fourth data representative of the grant request comprising data indicative of an amount of spectrum suitable for use for operations requiring bandwidth less than the conventional spectrum grant; and
receive fifth data originating from the SAS, the fifth data identifying one or more granted frequencies the CBSD is authorized to use, the one or more granted frequencies being in accordance with the amount of spectrum suitable for use for the operations requiring bandwidth less than the conventional spectrum grant.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights