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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment and restriction filed on 8/17/2026. Claims 1-27 and 33-43 have been canceled and claims 28-32 and new added claims 44-61 are pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 8/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Newly submitted claims 44-61 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Generic claims 28, 50 and 56.
Species I, claims 28-32, 50-54, 56, 61 discloses propagation model selection/parameterization, CBRS/MSO.
Species II, claims 28, 44-47, 50, 56 discloses FWA restrict to network, associating criterion with FWA to create first level in order to generate a second level based on configuration of FWA and ranking them based on distance
Species III, claims 28, 48, 50, 56 discloses feature map data.
Species IV, claims 28, 49, 50, and 56 discloses data structure of addresses of each of wireless access nodes.
Species V, claims 28, 50, 55, 56 discloses detecting interference of FWA.
Species VI, claims 28, 50, 55, 56 discloses determining interference.
Species VII, claims 28, 50, 56, 57 discloses select wireless access node based on response.
Species VIII, claims 28, 50, 56, 58 discloses un-allocating spectrum.
Species VIIII, claims 28, 50, 56, 59 discloses API cloud-based model.
Species X, claims 28, 50, 56, 60 discloses adjusting antenna based on signal strength.
Since, the branches includes claims 44-49, 55, 57-60 from independent claims 28, 50 and 56 create a serious burden for examiner to generate a different class, different search etc..
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 44-49, 55, 57-60 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. The species II-X will be joined with species I when Species I is allowed.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claim(s) 28, 50 and 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Patel [US 2020/0076518].
As claims 28, 50 and 56, Patel [US 2020/0076518] discloses a computerized network apparatus for use in a wireless infrastructure, the computerized network apparatus [Fig 2, Ref 210] comprising: digital processing apparatus [Fig 2, Ref 210 includes CPU]; a first network interface for communication with a first data network [Fig 1, Ref 210 includes interface for coupling to network 140 or 170], the first network interface in data communication with the digital processing apparatus [Fig 2, Ref 210 exchanges data with network 140 or 170]; a second network interface for communication with a data storage apparatus [Fig 2, Ref 210 exchanges data with Ref 190], the second network interface in data communication with the digital processing apparatus [Fig 2, Ref 210 and 190 exchanges data see Fig 10]; and a storage device in data communication with the digital processing apparatus, the storage device comprising a storage medium having at least one computer program, the at least one computer program configured to, when executed on the digital processing apparatus, cause the computerized network apparatus to: receive data relating to a fixed wireless apparatus (FWA) within the wireless infrastructure [Fig 10, Ref 1040 based on location of Ref 120, Ref 190 obtaining the information of Ref 220]; based at least on the data relating to the FWA, identify at least one wireless access node within the wireless infrastructure which meets at least one prescribed criterion relating to the FWA [Fig 10, Ref 1040 based on location of Ref 120, Ref 190 obtaining the information of Ref 220 that supports 5G]; generate at least one message to the FWA, the at least one message including data relating to the at least one wireless access node [Fig 10, Ref 1048 discloses generates a message which includes information about Ref 220 for send to Ref 120]; and cause transmission of the at least one message to the FWA [Fig 10, Ref 1048].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 29-30 and 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel [US 2020/0076158] in view of Edge [US 2015/0133173].
As claim 29, Patel [US 2020/0076158] fails to disclose what Edge [US 2015/0133173] discloses select at least one propagation model for use by the FWA in evaluation of the at least one wireless access node [Par. 0035, Fig 4 discloses the network forward assistance information such as propagation delay to UE to be use for measuring the received signal]; and include data relating to the at least one propagation model within the at least one message [Par. 0035, Fig 4 discloses the network forward assistance information such as propagation delay to UE to be use for measuring the received signal].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising the network send the propagation delay to UE as disclosed by Edge [US 2015/0133173] into the teaching of Patel [US 2020/0076158]. The motivation would have been to obtain the quality of signal.
As claims 30, Edge [US 2015/0133173] discloses the data relating to the at least one propagation model comprises a plurality of parameters selected by the computerized network apparatus for use with the at least one propagation model [Par. 0035].
As claim 51, Patel [US 2020/0076158] fails to disclose what Edge [US 2015/0133173] discloses select, based at least on a propagation environment associated with a location of the FWA, at least one propagation model from a plurality of propagation models, the at least one propagation model for use by the FWA in evaluation of the identified at least one wireless access node [Par. 0035, Fig 4 discloses the network forward assistance information such as propagation delay to UE to be use for measuring the received signal]; and include data relating to the selected at least one propagation model within the at least one message [Par. 0035, Fig 4 discloses the network forward assistance information such as propagation delay to UE to be use for measuring the received signal].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system as disclosed by Edge [US 2015/0133173] into the teaching of Patel [US 2020/0076158]. The motivation would have been to obtain the quality of signal.
Claim(s) 31-32 and 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel [US 2020/0076158] in view of Smyth [US 2019/0028182].
As claim 31, Patel [US 2020/0076158] discloses the wireless infrastructure comprises a wireless network utilizing 3GPP (Third Generation Partnership Project) 4G (fourth Generation) Long Term Evolution or 5G (Fifth Generation) New Radio compliant infrastructure [Fig 1]. However, Patel [US 2015/0133173] fails to discloses what Smyth [US 2019/0028182] discloses the wireless infrastructure comprises a wireless network utilizing 3GPP (Third Generation Partnership Project) 4G (fourth Generation) Long Term Evolution or 5G (Fifth Generation) New Radio compliant infrastructure utilizing Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) spectrum within a frequency range of 3.55 to 3.70 GHz [Par. 0003 and 0139]; and the computerized network apparatus comprises a CBRS SAS (spectrum allocation system) [Par. 0003-0009].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising 5G with CBRS and SAS as disclosed by Smyth into the teaching of Patel [US 2020/0076158]. The motivation would have been to obtain a quality signal.
As claims 32 and 61, Patel [US 2020/0076158] discloses the wireless infrastructure comprises a wireless network utilizing 3GPP (Third Generation Partnership Project) 4G (fourth Generation) Long Term Evolution or 5G (Fifth Generation) New Radio compliant infrastructure [Fig 1]. However, Patel [US 2015/0133173] fails to discloses what Smyth [US 2019/0028182] discloses the wireless infrastructure comprises a wireless network utilizing 3GPP (Third Generation Partnership Project) 4G (fourth Generation) Long Term Evolution or 5G (Fifth Generation) New Radio compliant infrastructure utilizing Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) spectrum within the frequency range of 3.55 to 3.70 GHz [Par. 0003]; the computerized network apparatus comprises a computerized process operated by a multiple systems operator (MSO) of a managed content delivery network [Par. 0007]; and the FWA and the at least one wireless access node are each managed by the MSO [Par. 0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising 5G with CBRS and SAS as disclosed by Smyth [US 2019/0028182] into the teaching of Patel [US 2020/0076158]. The motivation would have been to obtain a quality signal.
Claim(s) 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel [US 2020/0076158] in view of Khawer [US 2021/0234964].
As claim 54, Patel [US 2020/0076158] fails to disclose what Khawer [US 2021/0234964] a computerized process operated by a multiple systems operator (MSO) of a managed content distribution network, the computerized process configured to (i) act as a proxy between a spectrum access system (SAS) and each of the FWA and a plurality of wireless access nodes of the wireless network [Fig 1, Ref 130], and (ii) cause registration of the FWA and the plurality of wireless access nodes with the SAS [Par. 0020, 0042, 0046].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising a computerized process operated by a multiple systems operator (MSO) of a managed content distribution network, the computerized process configured to (i) act as a proxy between a spectrum access system (SAS) and each of the FWA and a plurality of wireless access nodes of the wireless network and (ii) cause registration of the FWA and the plurality of wireless access nodes with the SAS as disclosed by Khawer [US 2021/0234964] into the teaching of Patel [US 2020/0076158]. The motivation would have been to obtain a quality signal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 52-53 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.
As claim 52, the prior arts fails to disclose the data relating to the selected at least one propagation model comprises a plurality of parameter values, the plurality of parameter values comprising at least (i) a path loss exponent value, and (ii) a standard deviation value; and the plurality of parameter values are configured to cause an update of a propagation model previously stored at the FWA.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HIEU D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3159. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at 571-272-7884. 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.
/STEVEN HIEU D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights