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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Application # 18842693 filed 08/29/2024. Claims 1-20 are subject to examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35. U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1 and 15, claims 1 and 15 are directed to a statutory category of subject matter. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to a judicial exception. The subject matter of independent claims 1 and 15 are directed to data processing, e.g. “determine”. This idea is similar to the concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, (Fed. Cir. 2014). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements beyond the abstract idea of gathering and analyzing data. For example, the claimed step of determining interference margin is not considered to be significantly more. Therefore, the claim does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 1 and 15 are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim(s) 2-14 are also rejected since they are dependent upon rejected claim 1 as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2, 4, and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 and 14 recites “the second interference margin” in line 7 and 5 respectively. It is not clear if the second interference margin is referring to the respective second interference margin of the plurality of second interference margin.
Claim 4 recites “the plurality of first interference margins”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim(s) 3, 5, and 6 are also rejected because they are dependent upon rejected claims 2 as set forth above and include limitations of the claims 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10-11 and 18 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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) 1-6, 13-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by HATHIRAMANI et al. (HATHIRAMANI hereinafter) (WO 2022106713 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 and claim 15, HATHIRAMANI teaches, A communication control device comprising:
a processing unit (HATHIRAMANI ; an apparatus ... SAS 205, 605) and executed by at least one processor associated with the apparatus, Par. 0071) that:
determines a first interference margin that is an amount of interference that is acceptable to be given to a protected entity by at least one group of a plurality of communication devices, based on a cumulative acceptable amount of interference of the protected entity (HATHIRAMANI ; The SAS 605 can be configured to determine the interference margin for each of Operator A, Operator B, and Operator C, Par. 0062); and
determines a plurality of second interference margins that are amounts of interference that are acceptable to be given to the protected entity by the plurality of communication devices by allocating the first interference margin among the plurality of communication devices in the group (HATHIRAMANI ; the service 610, 615 (e.g., a microservice supporting interference budget allocation) can determine a distribution of the interference margin for Operator A and Operator B respectively. In addition, the service 610, 615 can be configured to determine operational parameters for base station(s) 625, 635, 650 … the service 615 can determine the interference margin and the operational parameters for base station 650 ... the interference margin and the operational parameters for base station(s) 635, Par. 0062).
Specifically for Claim 15, HATHIRAMANI teaches, A communication control method comprising (HATHIRAMANI ; an apparatus ... SAS 205, 605) and executed by at least one processor associated with the apparatus, Par. 0071).
Regarding Claim 16 and clam 20, HATHIRAMANI teaches, A communication device that belongs to a group including a plurality of first communication devices and is one of the plurality of first communication devices (HATHIRAMANI; Fig. 3 … base station 315, 320, 325, 330, 335, 340 can be within the geographic interference protection area 310, Par. 0048), the communication device comprising:
a processing unit that adjusts, when the communication device is located in an exclusion zone for protection of a protected entity (HATHIRAMANI; a protected device 305, Par. 0048), a first transmission power determined according to a location of the communication device in the exclusion zone, based on the number of first communication devices that belong to the group and are located in the exclusion zone (HATHIRAMANI; base station 325 and 335 (associated with the first operator) can be allocated (e.g., assigned) an aggregate amount of interference equal to 1/3B ... base station 325 could be allocated 1/4B of interference and base station 335 could be allocated 1/12B of interference, Par. 0050); and
a transmission unit that transmits a radio signal with a second transmission power that is the adjusted first transmission power (HATHIRAMANI; the interference budget per operator can include a time period during which the interfering contours are valid. This time period can establish the period over which operators may be allowed to modify their strategy in terms of interference budget management. This can allow a list of interfering base stations to dynamically vary their operational parameters within the interference constraints, Par. 0054; The base station 510 reduce or attenuate signal power based on base station operational parameters determined by a SAS, Par. 0058).
Specifically for claim 20, HATHIRAMANI teaches, A communication method performed by a communication device that belongs to a group including a plurality of first communication devices and is one of the plurality of first communication devices, the communication method comprising (HATHIRAMANI; The base station 510 reduce or attenuate signal power based on base station operational parameters determined by a SAS, Par. 0058).
Regarding Claim 2, HATHIRAMANI teaches, The communication control device according to claim 1, wherein
each of the plurality of communication devices is capable of transmitting beams in a plurality of beam patterns (HATHIRAMANI; The base station 510 reduce or attenuate signal power based on base station operational parameters determined by a SAS, Par. 0058), and
the processing unit determines, for each of the plurality of communication devices, a combination of beam patterns such that an amount of interference given from the plurality of communication devices to the protected entity is equal to or less than the second interference margin (HATHIRAMANI; The interference budget requirements can be met using a combination of power (e.g., EIRP) and beam/antenna pattern modifications, Par. 0055).
Regarding Claim 3, HATHIRAMANI teaches, The communication control device according to claim 2, wherein the processing unit further determines transmission powers of the beam patterns in the combination (HATHIRAMANI; The interference budget requirements can be met using a combination of power (e.g., EIRP) and beam/antenna pattern modifications, Par. 0055).
Regarding Claim 4, HATHIRAMANI teaches, The communication control device according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit determines the plurality of first interference margins for the plurality of groups so that a sum of the plurality of first interference margins is equal to or less than the cumulative acceptable interference amount of the protected entity (HATHIRAMANI; The protection of protected devices (e.g., incumbents and higher tier users) can be based on aggregate interference from all base stations in a given distance from the protected device (e.g., as defined in the FCC part 96 rules), Par. 0049).
Regarding Claim 5, HATHIRAMANI teaches, The communication control device according to claim 3, wherein
each of the plurality of communication devices in the plurality of groups is capable of transmitting beams in a plurality of beam patterns, the processing unit determines, for each of the groups, a combination of beam patterns that maximizes a sum of amounts of interference for the plurality of communication devices, and
when a sum of first maximum interference margins of the groups, each first maximum interference margin being a maximum sum of amounts of interference for each group, exceeds the cumulative acceptable interference amount, the processing unit adjusts the first maximum interference margins of the plurality of groups so that a sum of second maximum interference margins that are the adjusted first interference margins is equal to or less than the cumulative acceptable interference amount, the second maximum interference margins being the first interference margins, and
determines, for each of groups, the combination of beam patterns for the plurality of communication devices such that an amount of interference given from the communication device to the protected entity is equal to or less than the second maximum interference margin (HATHIRAMANI; The interference budget requirements can be met using a combination of power ( e.g., EIRP) and beam/antenna pattern modifications, Par. 0055).
Regarding Claim 6, HATHIRAMANI teaches, The communication control device according to claim 5, wherein the processing unit further determines transmission powers of the beam patterns in the combination (HATHIRAMANI; The interference budget requirements can be met using a combination of power ( e.g., EIRP) and beam/antenna pattern modifications, Par. 0055).
Regarding Claim 13, HATHIRAMANI teaches, The communication control device according to claim 1, wherein
the processing unit receives identification information for identifying a group to which the plurality of communication devices belong (HATHIRAMANI; A SAS can be informed that a group of base stations (e.g., base station(s) 410, 415, 420) belong to an operator, Par. 0053), and
classifies the plurality of communication devices into one or more of groups based on the identification information (HATHIRAMANI; The SAS can determine which lower tiered users are to reduce power or stop transmission based on the SASs estimation of the combined or aggregate interference levels to the higher tiered users. A Citizens Broadband Radio Service Device (CBSD) can be a base station that supports the CBRS spectrum authorization framework, Par. 0039).
Regarding Claim 14, HATHIRAMANI teaches, The communication control device according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit receives policy information on allocation of an interference margin among the plurality of communication devices of the group from at least one of the plurality of communication devices belonging to the group, and determines the second interference margin by allocating the first interference margin among the plurality of communication devices based on the policy information (HATHIRAMANI; The protection of protected devices (e.g., incumbents and higher tier users) can be based on aggregate interference from all base stations in a given distance from the protected device (e.g., as defined in the FCC part 96 rules), Par. 0049).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HATHIRAMANI in view of Taneja et al. (Taneja hereinafter) (US 20210099886 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, HATHIRAMANI teaches, The communication control device according to claim 1.
HATHIRAMANI failed to explicitly teach,
wherein the group of the plurality of communication devices is a group of a plurality of communication devices that perform cooperative communication by simultaneously transmitting radio waves.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Taneja teaches,
wherein the group of the plurality of communication devices is a group of a plurality of communication devices that perform cooperative communication by simultaneously transmitting radio waves (Taneja; Within the enterprise A, the CBSDs x3 and x4 of group 604A, for example, can adopt Coordinated Multipoint Transmission (CoMP) coordinated scheduling techniques for managing CBRS sub channels f1 and f2, Par. 0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of HATHIRAMANI to include the use of CoMP technique as taught by Taneja in order to communicate (Taneja; Par. 0078).
Regarding Claim 19, HATHIRAMANI teaches, The communication device according to claim 16.
HATHIRAMANI failed to explicitly teach,
wherein the processing unit controls cooperative communication for transmitting the radio signal simultaneously with the other first communication devices belonging to the group.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Taneja teaches,
wherein the processing unit controls cooperative communication for transmitting the radio signal simultaneously with the other first communication devices belonging to the group (Taneja; Within the enterprise A, the CBSDs x3 and x4 of group 604A, for example, can adopt Coordinated Multipoint Transmission (CoMP) coordinated scheduling techniques for managing CBRS sub channels f1 and f2, Par. 0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of HATHIRAMANI to include the use of CoMP technique as taught by Taneja in order to communicate (Taneja; Par. 0078).
Claim 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HATHIRAMANI in view of Khawer et al. (Khawer hereinafter) (US 20220394491 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, HATHIRAMANI teaches, The communication control device according to claim 7.
Although HATHIRAMANI teaches that interference budget is split among base stations but failed to explicitly teach that budget will be recalculated when number changes. HATHIRAMANI failed to explicitly teach,
wherein it is prescribed that a communication device located in an exclusion zone for protection of the protected entity, among the plurality of communication devices belonging to the group, transmits a radio signal with a first transmission power according to a location of the communication device, and when the number of communication devices located in the exclusion zone belonging to the group, among the plurality of communication devices, is two or more, the processing unit determines that it is necessary to adjust the first transmission powers of the two or more communication devices.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Khawer teaches,
wherein it is prescribed that a communication device located in an exclusion zone for protection of the protected entity, among the plurality of communication devices belonging to the group, transmits a radio signal with a first transmission power according to a location of the communication device, and when the number of communication devices located in the exclusion zone belonging to the group, among the plurality of communication devices, is two or more, the processing unit determines that it is necessary to adjust the first transmission powers of the two or more communication devices ( Khawer; At block 915, the SAS estimates an aggregate interference for the newly installed CBSD in combination with any previously installed CBSDs, Par. 0068).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of HATHIRAMANI to include the use of addition of CBSD as taught by Khawer in order to recompute interference (Khawer; Par. 0078).
Regarding Claim 9, HATHIRAMANI- Khawer teaches, The communication control device according to claim 8, wherein the first transmission power according to the location of the communication device is a transmission power with which the amount of interference given to the protected entity when the communication device alone transmits radio waves at the location of the communication device is equal to or less than the cumulative acceptable interference amount (HATHIRAMANI; the interference budget associated with the geographic interference protection area 310 can be B, Par. 0050).
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HATHIRAMANI in view of Hamzeh et al. (Hamzeh hereinafter) (US 20210389474 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, HATHIRAMANI- Khawer teaches, The communication control device according to claim 8.
HATHIRAMANI- Khawer fail to explicitly teach,
wherein the processing unit determines that it is not necessary to adjust the first transmission power for a communication device that is outside the exclusion zone among the plurality of communication devices belonging to the group.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hamzeh teaches,
wherein the processing unit determines that it is not necessary to adjust the first transmission power for a communication device that is outside the exclusion zone among the plurality of communication devices belonging to the group ( Hamzeh; A third geo-tier zone, outside of the second geo-tier zone, could then be set to a 780 m radius, and for operation within, for example, 500 MHz at 4 W. Beyond 780 m, higher powers are available, Par. 0113).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of HATHIRAMANI- Khawer to include the use of location as taught by Hamzeh in order to determine power (Hamzeh; Par. 0113).
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HATHIRAMANI in view of McFadden et al. (McFadden hereinafter) (US 20210022007 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, HATHIRAMANI teaches, The communication device according to claim 16, further comprising a reception unit that receives frequencies available to the communication device, wherein the processing unit determines whether information indicating a necessity for adjustment of the first transmission power is associated with the available frequencies in the list, and when the information indicating the necessity for adjustment of the first transmission power is associated with the available frequencies in the list, adjusts the first transmission power (HATHIRAMANI; The SAS can grant the usage of the spectrum for a certain period of time defined by transmitExpir eTime in the Heartbeat Response Message, Par. 0041; The message can include a response (e.g., a heartbeat response) … The message can include the verified operational parameters per base station including max interference margin per set of base station and per protected device … The message can include a request (e.g., a grant update request). The message can the established operational parameters per base station (e.g., as configured by the BS/DP 805) which can include different power (e.g., EIRP) and/or antenna pattern variations, Par. 0069-0070).
HATHIRAMANI failed to explicitly teach,
a list of frequencies.
However, in the same field of endeavor, McFadden teaches,
a list of frequencies (McFadden; Fig. 17; The SAS responds with the available channels for that CBSD and maxEirp (dBm/MHz) per channel Based on available channels from the SAS, Table 4.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of HATHIRAMANI to include the use of messaging as taught by McFadden in order to receive channel information (McFadden; Fig. 17).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art Kalenahalli et al. (US 20230254779 A1) teaches determination of aggregate interference for a set of CBSDs and individual maximum power of CBSD in Fig. 2B
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARMIN CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-6419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tue 8:00 am - 5:00 pm; Wed 8 am - 12 pm.
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, Noel Beharry can be reached at 5712705630. 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.
/SHARMIN CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights