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 .
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 16-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srikanteswara et al. (US 2017/0318470 A1, hereinafter "Srikanteswara") in view of Damnjanovic et al. (US 2021/0211886 A1, hereinafter "Damnjanovic").
Regarding claim 1, Srikanteswara teaches a communication control apparatus, comprising a processor (Srikanteswara discloses a shared-spectrum network device located in the higher-tier network, comprising one or more processors (¶[0167]; claim 8), implemented as control circuitry 1204 including processing and memory circuitry and executing retrieved program code (¶[0129], [0162], [0164]), and which may be a server-type component residing in the core network (¶[0164]). Srikanteswara's SAS/LSA controller is the entity that governs the emissions of the devices under its control, the framework being enforced "by specifying certain maximum permitted transmit power levels for CBSDs and end user terminals" (¶[0030])):
that acquires information indicating a priority relationship in interference protection between a first communication apparatus and a second communication apparatus that each transmit radio waves (Srikanteswara discloses: PAL (tier-2) users "receive interference protection from GAA users while accepting certain levels of interference from incumbent users," and GAA (tier-3) users receive no interference protection (¶[0028]). See also ¶[0004] and ¶[0328] (hierarchical prioritization of usage among user types based on prioritized spectrum access). Both parties transmit: GAA base stations of one SAS and PAL base stations of another SAS occupy the same census tract at the same time on the same frequency resource (¶[0054]). The relationship is supplied to the controller as licensing/registration data (¶[0026], [0031], [0061])),
that determines a transmission power of the first communication apparatus on a basis of the information indicating the priority relationship and an allowed interference power of the second communication apparatus (Srikanteswara discloses: the aggregated interference at PAL base station must satisfy P[I_j < I₀] > 0.99 with I₀ = −40 dBm (¶[0064]–[0065], [0074]), that figure being the level of emissions from other authorized Priority Access or GAA CBSDs that the licensee must accept (¶[0064]); Srikanteswara further discloses that the resulting constraint on the subordinate operator in which the lower-tier transmitters operate "only under certain restrictive conditions (¶[0122]), and that where priority must be given, "output power is reduced" (¶[0127])), and
that determines an allowed transmission power of the first communication apparatus (Srikanteswara ¶[0030] (controller specifies the maximum permitted transmit power levels), ¶[0122] (maximum EIRP limit imposed as the restrictive condition), ¶[0076]–[0077] (the constraint is optimized and transmitted to the subordinate network)).
Srikanteswara is silent to teaching that determines an amount of a reduction in a transmission power of the first communication apparatus, and that determines an allowed transmission power of the first communication apparatus on a basis of the reduction amount.
In the same field of endeavor, Damnjanovic teaches a device that determines an amount of a reduction in a transmission power of the first communication apparatus, and that determines an allowed transmission power of the first communication apparatus on a basis of the reduction amount (Damnjanovic teaches: each network is configured with "a maximum allowed interference threshold of the neighboring networks, which may be used in determining a transmission power reduction," the transmission power being "reduced less for higher allowed interference thresholds and … reduced more for lower allowed interference thresholds" (¶[0084]). The reduction is conditioned on the relative priority — power is reduced where the detected neighboring network holds higher priority (¶[0045], [0083]); ¶[0086] (a maximum PSD determined as the maximum allowable PSD less the computed reduction term)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Srikanteswara's higher-tier shared-spectrum control device so that the restrictive condition it imposes on the lower-tier operator is a transmission-power reduction sized in accordance with Damnjanovic's rule — reduced more for a lower allowed-interference threshold and less for a higher one, and applied only where the neighboring apparatus holds the higher priority. Srikanteswara already contemplates controlling the subordinate operator by an EIRP limit rather than a keep-out (¶[0122]) and by reducing output power where priority must be yielded (¶[0127]), but leaves the magnitude of that limit unspecified. Damnjanovic supplies precisely the missing quantity (¶[0084]). A skilled artisan looking to implement Srikanteswara's restriction-zone option would have looked to Damnjanovic's sizing rule.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein when the first communication apparatus has a level of priority higher than a level of priority of the second communication apparatus, the processor reduces the reduction amount, compared to when the first communication apparatus has a level of priority lower than or equal to the level of priority of the second communication apparatus (Damnjanovic ¶[0045]: reduce power where the other network has higher priority, and "transmit at a nominal transmission power if the other network has a lower priority"; ¶[0084] (reduced less / reduced more as a function of the threshold); Srikanteswara ¶[0028] (restraint tracks tier rank — PAL restrains GAA but yields to tier-1)).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein when the first communication apparatus has a level of priority higher than the level of priority of the second communication apparatus, the processor sets the reduction amount to zero (Damnjanovic ¶[0045]: nominal transmit power maintained in resources in which the first network holds higher priority; FIG. 3, ¶[0085] (the priority network transmits at full PSD throughout); Srikanteswara ¶[0055]: subordinate base stations within the census tract but outside the constrained zone "can transmit without causing interference to PAL base stations," i.e., no reduction is imposed; ¶[0028] (GAA receives no interference protection)).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein each of the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus transmits the radio waves on a basis of a certain right to preferentially secondarily use a spectrum, the processor subtracts, from the allowed interference power of the second communication apparatus, an interference budget that indicates an amount of interference with the second communication apparatus that is performed when the first communication apparatus transmits the radio waves with the transmission power, and distributes an allowed interference power obtained by the subtraction to a fourth communication apparatus, and the fourth communication apparatus is a communication apparatus that transmits the radio waves on a basis of another right to secondarily use the spectrum, the other right being given lesser priority than the certain right (Srikanteswara ¶[0027]–[0028]: three-tier framework in which PAL (tier-2) holds the priority secondary right and GAA (tier-3) is allotted the remaining spectrum plus any unused portions of the PAL spectrum; ¶[0054]–[0055] (headroom below the PAL threshold is what the GAA network is permitted to occupy); ¶[0121] (tier-3 admitted with the obligation to protect tier-2). Damnjanovic ¶[0081] (regulator licenses one network with higher priority to the same shared band than the other).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor determines whether the first communication apparatus is situated in an environment in which a certain amount of propagation loss is expected, and when the first communication apparatus is situated in the environment, the processor does not perform processing of reducing the reduction amount for the first communication apparatus (Damnjanovic ¶[0088]: the amount of PSD reduction is decreased only within a certain frequency range of the neighbor's carrier, the relaxation being conditioned and withheld where the condition is not satisfied; ¶[0044] (deployment sited in a factory or building); Srikanteswara ¶[0122] (protection conditions defined by measurement quantities and thresholds — e.g., mean field strength at a defined receiver antenna height — such that the relaxation is unavailable where the propagation situation does not meet the condition); ¶[0119] (a more centrally located protected station receives a larger constraint, the relaxation being withheld where geometry is unfavorable)).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor exchanges, with another communication control apparatus, the pieces of information regarding the priority relationships (Srikanteswara ¶[0061]: the two operators "could belong to different operators reporting to different SASs"; ¶[0084]–[0087] and Table 1: a two-way inter-SAS interface carrying the transmitter distribution γ and number N_TX in one direction and the resulting zone/constraint information in the other; ¶[0063] (two-way communication once per round, few parameters); ¶[0163] (the device is configured to communicate with another electronic device via an inter-SAS and/or inter-LSA interface); Damnjanovic ¶[0082]: (coexistence manager maintains and distributes the priority configuration)).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein a first operator has a right to preferentially secondarily use a spectrum in a first area and a second area, the first communication apparatus is a communication apparatus that is operated by the first operator in the first area, and the second communication apparatus is a communication apparatus that is operated by a second operator that has leased the right from the first operator in the second area (Srikanteswara ¶[0024]: the right is defined for "a given geographic area, given frequency range, and given period of time," obtained under a multi-year sharing contract with the incumbent; ¶[0028] (10 MHz bands licensed in specified census tracts); ¶[0031] (dedicated access for a given period in a given geographic area); Damnjanovic ¶[0044]: (local operator licensed for a first geographic location; regional operator licensed outside those areas)).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein a first operator has a right to preferentially secondarily use a spectrum in a first area, a second operator has the right in a second area, the first communication apparatus is a communication apparatus that is operated by the first operator in the first area, or is a communication apparatus that is operated by a third operator that has leased the right from the first operator, and the second communication apparatus is a communication apparatus that is operated by the second operator in the second area, or is a communication apparatus that is operated by a fourth operator that has leased the right from the second operator (Srikanteswara ¶[0054], [0061]: a PAL network of one SAS and a GAA network of a different SAS, belonging to different operators, sharing the same census tract; ¶[0128] (a higher-tier network handling several distinct lower-tier networks); Damnjanovic ¶[0081] (local licensee holds priority in its designated area; outside that area the spectrum is used by another licensee, local or regional)).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein a first operator has a right to preferentially secondarily use a spectrum in a first area, and the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus are communication apparatuses that are respectively operated by operators of a plurality of operators each having leased the right from the first operator in the first area (Srikanteswara ¶[0022], [0024] (licensees license the targeted bands from incumbents under sharing contracts); ¶[0064] (multiple authorized Priority Access CBSDs coexisting in the band, each accepting the others' emissions); ¶[0128] (multiple subordinate networks handled against one budget)).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein a first operator has a right to preferentially secondarily use a spectrum in a first area, and the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus are communication apparatuses that are operated by the first operator in the first area (Srikanteswara ¶[0030]: the controller specifies maximum permitted transmit power levels for both the CBSDs and the end-user terminals of a single licensee's network. Damnjanovic ¶[0081]: "even within a single network, different resources or prioritizations may be provided for different services," URLLC traffic having higher priority than eMBB traffic).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor groups a plurality of communication apparatuses to generate groups of the plurality of communication apparatuses having the priority relationship with each other, and determines the allowed transmission powers of the plurality of communication apparatuses for each group on a basis of the priority relationship (Srikanteswara ¶[0083]: the subordinate network "unifies together base stations and/or users with the similar power level" into the distribution γ shared with the protected network; ¶[0128] (separate constraints calculated for each of several lower-tier networks and provided to their respective networks). Damnjanovic ¶[0045], [0082] (each operator assigned a color denoting priority; all nodes of a colored network apply that network's treatment — FIGS. 3–6, ¶[0085]–[0087], a per-network reduced PSD)).
Regarding claim 23, Srikanteswara teaches a communication control method, comprising:
acquiring information indicating a priority relationship in interference protection between a first communication apparatus and a second communication apparatus that each transmit radio waves (Srikanteswara discloses: PAL (tier-2) users "receive interference protection from GAA users while accepting certain levels of interference from incumbent users," and GAA (tier-3) users receive no interference protection (¶[0028]). See also ¶[0004] and ¶[0328] (hierarchical prioritization of usage among user types based on prioritized spectrum access). Both parties transmit: GAA base stations of one SAS and PAL base stations of another SAS occupy the same census tract at the same time on the same frequency resource (¶[0054]). The relationship is supplied to the controller as licensing/registration data (¶[0026], [0031], [0061])),
determining a transmission power of the first communication apparatus on a basis of the information indicating the priority relationship and an allowed interference power of the second communication apparatus (Srikanteswara discloses: the aggregated interference at PAL base station must satisfy P[I_j < I₀] > 0.99 with I₀ = −40 dBm (¶[0064]–[0065], [0074]), that figure being the level of emissions from other authorized Priority Access or GAA CBSDs that the licensee must accept (¶[0064]). Srikanteswara further discloses that the resulting constraint on the subordinate operator in which the lower-tier transmitters operate "only under certain restrictive conditions (¶[0122]), and that where priority must be given, "output power is reduced" (¶[0127])), and
determining an allowed transmission power of the first communication apparatus (Srikanteswara ¶[0030] (controller specifies the maximum permitted transmit power levels), ¶[0122] (maximum EIRP limit imposed as the restrictive condition), ¶[0076]–[0077] (the constraint is optimized and transmitted to the subordinate network)).
Srikanteswara is silent to teaching that determining an amount of a reduction in a transmission power of the first communication apparatus, and determining an allowed transmission power of the first communication apparatus on a basis of the reduction amount.
In the same field of endeavor, Damnjanovic teaches a method comprising determining an amount of a reduction in a transmission power of the first communication apparatus, and determining an allowed transmission power of the first communication apparatus on a basis of the reduction amount (Damnjanovic teaches: each network is configured with "a maximum allowed interference threshold of the neighboring networks, which may be used in determining a transmission power reduction," the transmission power being "reduced less for higher allowed interference thresholds and … reduced more for lower allowed interference thresholds" (¶[0084]). The reduction is conditioned on the relative priority — power is reduced where the detected neighboring network holds higher priority (¶[0045], [0083]); ¶[0086] (a maximum PSD determined as the maximum allowable PSD less the computed reduction term)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Srikanteswara's higher-tier shared-spectrum control device so that the restrictive condition it imposes on the lower-tier operator is a transmission-power reduction sized in accordance with Damnjanovic's rule — reduced more for a lower allowed-interference threshold and less for a higher one, and applied only where the neighboring apparatus holds the higher priority. Srikanteswara already contemplates controlling the subordinate operator by an EIRP limit rather than a keep-out (¶[0122]) and by reducing output power where priority must be yielded (¶[0127]), but leaves the magnitude of that limit unspecified. Damnjanovic supplies precisely the missing quantity (¶[0084]). A skilled artisan looking to implement Srikanteswara's restriction-zone option would have looked to Damnjanovic's sizing rule.
Claim(s) 4-7, and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Kimura et al. (US 2013/0217429 A1, hereinafter "Kimura").
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 3.
The combination of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic is silent to teaching that wherein the processor distributes the allowed interference power of the second communication apparatus to at least one third communication apparatus, determines an allowed transmission power of the third communication apparatus on a basis of the allowed interference power distributed to the third communication apparatus, and does not distribute the allowed interference power of the second communication apparatus to the first communication apparatus, and the third communication apparatus is a communication apparatus for which the priority relationship with the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus is not set, or the third communication apparatus is a communication apparatus for which the priority relationship with the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus is set, and that has a level of priority lower than or equal to the level of priority of the second communication apparatus.
In the same field of endeavor, Kimura teaches a device wherein the processor distributes the allowed interference power of the second communication apparatus to at least one third communication apparatus, determines an allowed transmission power of the third communication apparatus on a basis of the allowed interference power distributed to the third communication apparatus, and does not distribute the allowed interference power of the second communication apparatus to the first communication apparatus, and the third communication apparatus is a communication apparatus for which the priority relationship with the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus is not set, or the third communication apparatus is a communication apparatus for which the priority relationship with the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus is set, and that has a level of priority lower than or equal to the level of priority of the second communication apparatus (Kimura ¶[0149]–[0151]: the power of the higher-priority system is determined first and the balance is redistributed "to the remaining secondary systems," i.e., those of lower or unspecified priority; ¶[0119]–[0123] (designated systems are excluded from the allocation targets entirely — a distribution withheld)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic with the teaching of Kimura. Kimura is analogous art from the same field of endeavor and directed to the same problem: a centralized communication control device 100 that allocates transmission power among plural secondary systems so that their aggregate interference does not exceed an acceptable interference amount of a protected party (¶[0011], [0077], [0087]–[0089], formulas (1)–(2)). Kimura is thus reasonably pertinent to the problem Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic address and provides the specific computational mechanics — budget subtraction and redistribution, fixed and adaptive margins, correction coefficients, and priority-weighted apportionment — that Srikanteswara leaves at the level of "restrictive conditions" and Damnjanovic leaves at the level of "more" or "less."
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adopt Kimura's mechanics in the Srikanteswara/Damnjanovic controller for the reasons Kimura itself gives, which coincide with the objectives of the primary references. Kimura teaches that a fixed distribution margin set too large means "individual transmission power is excessively restricted" when fewer systems are present, and that the margin "may be dynamically set more desirably than the fixed margin system" (¶[0198]) — the same efficiency concern Srikanteswara expresses at ¶[0046] and pursues in its optimization step at ¶[0076] (minimum constrained area or maximum lower-tier capacity), and the same concern Damnjanovic expresses at ¶[0044] regarding over-large safeguard margins. Kimura further teaches that stepwise distribution and redistribution lets the allocable power "be calculated with less calculation resources," reducing computational load as the number of systems grows (¶[0215]) — a benefit of direct value in Srikanteswara's setting, where the controller evaluates aggregate interference from N_TX transmitters (¶[0071]–[0072], [0113]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 2.
The combination of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic is silent to teaching that wherein the processor subtracts, from the allowed interference power of the second communication apparatus, an interference budget that indicates an amount of interference with the second communication apparatus that is performed when the first communication apparatus transmits the radio waves with the transmission power, distributes an allowed interference power obtained by the subtraction to a third communication apparatus, and determines an allowed transmission power of the third communication apparatus on a basis of the allowed interference power distributed to the third communication apparatus, and the third communication apparatus is a communication apparatus for which the priority relationship with the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus is not set, or the third communication apparatus is a communication apparatus for which the priority relationship with the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus is set, and that has a level of priority lower than or equal to the level of priority of the second communication apparatus.
In the same field of endeavor, Kimura teaches a device wherein the processor subtracts, from the allowed interference power of the second communication apparatus, an interference budget that indicates an amount of interference with the second communication apparatus that is performed when the first communication apparatus transmits the radio waves with the transmission power, distributes an allowed interference power obtained by the subtraction to a third communication apparatus, and determines an allowed transmission power of the third communication apparatus on a basis of the allowed interference power distributed to the third communication apparatus, and the third communication apparatus is a communication apparatus for which the priority relationship with the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus is not set, or the third communication apparatus is a communication apparatus for which the priority relationship with the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus is set, and that has a level of priority lower than or equal to the level of priority of the second communication apparatus (Kimura ¶[0140]–[0141], formula (12): "the acceptable interference amount obtained by subtracting the interference amount caused by the use of a near channel from the acceptable interference amount of the primary system is redistributed between the remaining secondary systems"; ¶[0151] (same subtraction-and-redistribution applied after the higher-priority system's share is fixed)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic with the teaching of Kimura. Kimura is analogous art from the same field of endeavor and directed to the same problem: a centralized communication control device 100 that allocates transmission power among plural secondary systems so that their aggregate interference does not exceed an acceptable interference amount of a protected party (¶[0011], [0077], [0087]–[0089], formulas (1)–(2)). Kimura is thus reasonably pertinent to the problem Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic address and provides the specific computational mechanics — budget subtraction and redistribution, fixed and adaptive margins, correction coefficients, and priority-weighted apportionment — that Srikanteswara leaves at the level of "restrictive conditions" and Damnjanovic leaves at the level of "more" or "less."
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adopt Kimura's mechanics in the Srikanteswara/Damnjanovic controller for the reasons Kimura itself gives, which coincide with the objectives of the primary references. Kimura teaches that a fixed distribution margin set too large means "individual transmission power is excessively restricted" when fewer systems are present, and that the margin "may be dynamically set more desirably than the fixed margin system" (¶[0198]) — the same efficiency concern Srikanteswara expresses at ¶[0046] and pursues in its optimization step at ¶[0076] (minimum constrained area or maximum lower-tier capacity), and the same concern Damnjanovic expresses at ¶[0044] regarding over-large safeguard margins. Kimura further teaches that stepwise distribution and redistribution lets the allocable power "be calculated with less calculation resources," reducing computational load as the number of systems grows (¶[0215]) — a benefit of direct value in Srikanteswara's setting, where the controller evaluates aggregate interference from N_TX transmitters (¶[0071]–[0072], [0113]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Srikanteswara, Damnjanovic and Kimura teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the processor determines the transmission power of the first communication apparatus on a basis of an allowed interference power of an optional protection target, and the interference budget indicates an amount of interference with the second communication apparatus that is performed when the first communication apparatus transmits the radio waves with the determined transmission power (Kimura ¶[0087]–[0090], formulas (1)–(2): P_max derived from I_acceptable(i,f_j) and the path loss, with each system's contribution given by P·L·G. Srikanteswara ¶[0110]–[0111]: received interference y(r) = P_t·K(d₀/r)^β computed from the transmit power and path-loss model; ¶[0065], [0074] (compared against I₀)).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Srikanteswara, Damnjanovic and Kimura teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the protection target includes at least one of a primary system or the third communication apparatus, the primary system preferentially using the radio waves over the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus (Srikanteswara ¶[0004], [0028]–[0029]: incumbents occupy the highest tier, are protected from both PAL and GAA, and may compel lower-tier users to vacate; ¶[0120] (an incumbent network may occupy the protected role, with a tier-2 licensee network as the subordinate). Kimura ¶[0002], [0087] (the primary system is preferentially allocated the channel and its I_acceptable is the constraint); ¶[0089] (aggregation over the other secondary systems)).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 2.
The combination of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic is silent to teaching that wherein the processor distributes the allowed interference power of the second communication apparatus at least to the first communication apparatus, determines the amount of the reduction in the transmission power of the first communication apparatus according to the allowed interference power distributed to the first communication apparatus, and according to an interference budget that indicates an amount of interference with the second communication apparatus that is performed when the first communication apparatus transmits the radio waves with the transmission power, adjusts the reduction amount by reducing the reduction amount by an optional value, and determines the allowed transmission power of the first communication apparatus on a basis of a reduction amount obtained by the adjustment.
In the same field of endeavor, Kimura teaches a device wherein the processor distributes the allowed interference power of the second communication apparatus at least to the first communication apparatus, determines the amount of the reduction in the transmission power of the first communication apparatus according to the allowed interference power distributed to the first communication apparatus, and according to an interference budget that indicates an amount of interference with the second communication apparatus that is performed when the first communication apparatus transmits the radio waves with the transmission power, adjusts the reduction amount by reducing the reduction amount by an optional value, and determines the allowed transmission power of the first communication apparatus on a basis of a reduction amount obtained by the adjustment (Kimura ¶[0143]–[0146], formulas (14)–(16): a correction coefficient Δ is calculated from the total interference and the acceptable interference amount at the worst-case point and applied as P″(f_j,k) = P′(f_j,k)·Δ; ¶[0201]–[0208] (the margin is adaptively set rather than fixed, i.e., the back-off is reduced). Damnjanovic ¶[0088]: "the amount of PSD reduction may be decreased.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic with the teaching of Kimura. Kimura is analogous art from the same field of endeavor and directed to the same problem: a centralized communication control device 100 that allocates transmission power among plural secondary systems so that their aggregate interference does not exceed an acceptable interference amount of a protected party (¶[0011], [0077], [0087]–[0089], formulas (1)–(2)). Kimura is thus reasonably pertinent to the problem Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic address and provides the specific computational mechanics — budget subtraction and redistribution, fixed and adaptive margins, correction coefficients, and priority-weighted apportionment — that Srikanteswara leaves at the level of "restrictive conditions" and Damnjanovic leaves at the level of "more" or "less."
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adopt Kimura's mechanics in the Srikanteswara/Damnjanovic controller for the reasons Kimura itself gives, which coincide with the objectives of the primary references. Kimura teaches that a fixed distribution margin set too large means "individual transmission power is excessively restricted" when fewer systems are present, and that the margin "may be dynamically set more desirably than the fixed margin system" (¶[0198]) — the same efficiency concern Srikanteswara expresses at ¶[0046] and pursues in its optimization step at ¶[0076] (minimum constrained area or maximum lower-tier capacity), and the same concern Damnjanovic expresses at ¶[0044] regarding over-large safeguard margins. Kimura further teaches that stepwise distribution and redistribution lets the allocable power "be calculated with less calculation resources," reducing computational load as the number of systems grows (¶[0215]) — a benefit of direct value in Srikanteswara's setting, where the controller evaluates aggregate interference from N_TX transmitters (¶[0071]–[0072], [0113]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Srikanteswara, Damnjanovic and Kimura teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the processor determines the optional value according to a distance between the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus (Kimura ¶[0022]–[0023], [0109], [0180]–[0189]: allocation determined from a path loss depending on the distance between the interferer and the protected party, with four express definitions of that distance. Srikanteswara ¶[0089]–[0090] (PDF of the distance of one subordinate transmitter to a given protected station, transformed into the interference PDF), ¶[0108]–[0111] (L_ij as a function of d), ¶[0119] (the constraint radius grows with the resulting interference). Damnjanovic ¶[0086]–[0087] (larger reduction as the nodes move into closer proximity)).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 2.
The combination of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic is silent to teaching that wherein the processor determines the allowed transmission power of the first communication apparatus using a preset fixed value as the amount of the reduction in the transmission power of the first communication apparatus, or determines the allowed transmission power of the first communication apparatus using the preset fixed value as a transmission power obtained by reducing the transmission power of the first communication apparatus by the low power amount.
In the same field of endeavor, Kimura teaches a device wherein the processor determines the allowed transmission power of the first communication apparatus using a preset fixed value as the amount of the reduction in the transmission power of the first communication apparatus, or determines the allowed transmission power of the first communication apparatus using the preset fixed value as a transmission power obtained by reducing the transmission power of the first communication apparatus by the low power amount (Kimura ¶[0128]–[0129], formula (5): the fixed margin system, in which "a fixedly-preset distribution margin MI (and safety margin SM) is used so that transmission power to be distributed to each secondary systems is easily calculated"; ¶[0198] (MI a fixed value, e.g., 3 dB to 6 dB)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic with the teaching of Kimura. Kimura is analogous art from the same field of endeavor and directed to the same problem: a centralized communication control device 100 that allocates transmission power among plural secondary systems so that their aggregate interference does not exceed an acceptable interference amount of a protected party (¶[0011], [0077], [0087]–[0089], formulas (1)–(2)). Kimura is thus reasonably pertinent to the problem Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic address and provides the specific computational mechanics — budget subtraction and redistribution, fixed and adaptive margins, correction coefficients, and priority-weighted apportionment — that Srikanteswara leaves at the level of "restrictive conditions" and Damnjanovic leaves at the level of "more" or "less."
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adopt Kimura's mechanics in the Srikanteswara/Damnjanovic controller for the reasons Kimura itself gives, which coincide with the objectives of the primary references. Kimura teaches that a fixed distribution margin set too large means "individual transmission power is excessively restricted" when fewer systems are present, and that the margin "may be dynamically set more desirably than the fixed margin system" (¶[0198]) — the same efficiency concern Srikanteswara expresses at ¶[0046] and pursues in its optimization step at ¶[0076] (minimum constrained area or maximum lower-tier capacity), and the same concern Damnjanovic expresses at ¶[0044] regarding over-large safeguard margins. Kimura further teaches that stepwise distribution and redistribution lets the allocable power "be calculated with less calculation resources," reducing computational load as the number of systems grows (¶[0215]) — a benefit of direct value in Srikanteswara's setting, where the controller evaluates aggregate interference from N_TX transmitters (¶[0071]–[0072], [0113]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 1.
The combination of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic is silent to teaching that wherein the processor determines the transmission power of the first communication apparatus and the transmission power of the second communication apparatus by distributing an allowed interference power of an optional protection target to the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus in a first proportion, and determines the first proportion according to the priority relationship between the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus.
In the same field endeavor, Kimura teaches a device wherein the processor determines the transmission power of the first communication apparatus and the transmission power of the second communication apparatus by distributing an allowed interference power of an optional protection target to the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus in a first proportion, and determines the first proportion according to the priority relationship between the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus (Kimura ¶[0138]–[0139], formulas (10)–(11): the weighting distribution system, in which the transmission power allocated to each system is scaled by w_k/Σw_kk, "w_k indicat[ing] a weight depending on a priority"; ¶[0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic with the teaching of Kimura. Kimura is analogous art from the same field of endeavor and directed to the same problem: a centralized communication control device 100 that allocates transmission power among plural secondary systems so that their aggregate interference does not exceed an acceptable interference amount of a protected party (¶[0011], [0077], [0087]–[0089], formulas (1)–(2)). Kimura is thus reasonably pertinent to the problem Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic address and provides the specific computational mechanics — budget subtraction and redistribution, fixed and adaptive margins, correction coefficients, and priority-weighted apportionment — that Srikanteswara leaves at the level of "restrictive conditions" and Damnjanovic leaves at the level of "more" or "less."
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adopt Kimura's mechanics in the Srikanteswara/Damnjanovic controller for the reasons Kimura itself gives, which coincide with the objectives of the primary references. Kimura teaches that a fixed distribution margin set too large means "individual transmission power is excessively restricted" when fewer systems are present, and that the margin "may be dynamically set more desirably than the fixed margin system" (¶[0198]) — the same efficiency concern Srikanteswara expresses at ¶[0046] and pursues in its optimization step at ¶[0076] (minimum constrained area or maximum lower-tier capacity), and the same concern Damnjanovic expresses at ¶[0044] regarding over-large safeguard margins. Kimura further teaches that stepwise distribution and redistribution lets the allocable power "be calculated with less calculation resources," reducing computational load as the number of systems grows (¶[0215]) — a benefit of direct value in Srikanteswara's setting, where the controller evaluates aggregate interference from N_TX transmitters (¶[0071]–[0072], [0113]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Srikanteswara, Damnjanovic and Kimura teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the priority relationship indicates that one of the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus has priority over another of the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus, and the processor causes a larger portion of the allowed interference power to be distributed to the one of the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus than the other of the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus (Kimura formula (10) (a larger priority weight yields a larger allocated share), ¶[0139]; ¶[0018] and ¶[0149]–[0150] (the higher-priority system's tentative allocation is confirmed first and the remainder redistributed to the others). Damnjanovic ¶[0084] (magnitude keyed to relative priority)).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Srikanteswara, Damnjanovic and Kimura teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the first communication apparatus is a communication apparatus that is operated by a first operator that has a right to preferentially secondarily use a spectrum, and the second communication apparatus is a communication apparatus that is operated by a second operator that has leased the right from the first operator (Srikanteswara ¶[0022] ("an SAS or LSA 'licensee' may license certain targeted frequency bands from 'incumbents'"), ¶[0024] (a licensee "may engage in a multi-year sharing contract with an incumbent (e.g., 10 years or more)"), ¶[0028] (PAL users license 10 MHz bands in specified census tracts). Damnjanovic ¶[0044], [0081]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 2.
The combination of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic is silent to teaching that wherein the processor determines the reduction amount for the one of the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus by causing a propagation loss to apparently become larger, the propagation loss being a loss in propagation from the one of the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus to the other of the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus.
In the same field of endeavor, Kimura teaches a device wherein the processor determines the reduction amount for the one of the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus by causing a propagation loss to apparently become larger, the propagation loss being a loss in propagation from the one of the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus to the other of the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus (Kimura ¶[0128]–[0129], formula (5): P(f_j,k) = I_acceptable/(L(i,f_j,k)·G(f_j,k)·MI·SM) — the margin terms multiply the path-loss term L, which is mathematically indistinguishable from treating the propagation loss between the interferer and the protected point as larger than its physical value; ¶[0198] (MI expressed in dB, i.e., added to the path loss in the logarithmic domain)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic with the teaching of Kimura. Kimura is analogous art from the same field of endeavor and directed to the same problem: a centralized communication control device 100 that allocates transmission power among plural secondary systems so that their aggregate interference does not exceed an acceptable interference amount of a protected party (¶[0011], [0077], [0087]–[0089], formulas (1)–(2)). Kimura is thus reasonably pertinent to the problem Srikanteswara and Damnjanovic address and provides the specific computational mechanics — budget subtraction and redistribution, fixed and adaptive margins, correction coefficients, and priority-weighted apportionment — that Srikanteswara leaves at the level of "restrictive conditions" and Damnjanovic leaves at the level of "more" or "less."
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adopt Kimura's mechanics in the Srikanteswara/Damnjanovic controller for the reasons Kimura itself gives, which coincide with the objectives of the primary references. Kimura teaches that a fixed distribution margin set too large means "individual transmission power is excessively restricted" when fewer systems are present, and that the margin "may be dynamically set more desirably than the fixed margin system" (¶[0198]) — the same efficiency concern Srikanteswara expresses at ¶[0046] and pursues in its optimization step at ¶[0076] (minimum constrained area or maximum lower-tier capacity), and the same concern Damnjanovic expresses at ¶[0044] regarding over-large safeguard margins. Kimura further teaches that stepwise distribution and redistribution lets the allocable power "be calculated with less calculation resources," reducing computational load as the number of systems grows (¶[0215]) — a benefit of direct value in Srikanteswara's setting, where the controller evaluates aggregate interference from N_TX transmitters (¶[0071]–[0072], [0113]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220386248 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN WU HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7852. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/WEN W HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights