DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/11/25 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph [0001] of the originally filed specification, reference to parent case 17/780,273 should be updated so as to reflect the fact that this application has now issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,302,116. Also, on line 3 of paragraph [0025], it appears that the word "are" should be changed to --and--. On line 5 of paragraph [0030], it appears that the word "that" should be changed to --than--, and on the last line of this paragraph, the first occurrence of the word "the" should be deleted. On line 13 of paragraph [0032], the word "interfaces" should be changed to --interface--. On line 13 of paragraph [0041], the word "selecting" should be changed to --select--. On line 5 of paragraph [0042], "a" should be deleted. On line 11 of paragraph [0046], the first occurrence of the word "and" should be changed to --an--. On lines 18 and 19 of paragraph [0046], the word "instance" should be changed to --instances--. On line 14 of paragraph [0047], "which is" should be changed to --reaches--. On line 5 of paragraph [0050], "instance of the" should be deleted. On line 4 of paragraph [0053], the word "instance" should be changed to
--instances--, and also on this line, "the instances of" should be deleted. On the last line of paragraph [0056], the word "minds" should be changed to --mines--. On line 13 of paragraph [0057], the word --of-- should be inserted before "both". On the second line of paragraph [0058], the word "that" should be deleted, and also in this paragraph, on line 5 thereof, "software generic" should be changed to --generic software--. On line 7 of paragraph [0058], --a-- should be inserted after "as". On line 8 of paragraph [0060], the word --to-- should be inserted after "820". On line 6 of paragraph [0062], "CBSD" should be changed to --CBSDs--. On line 7 of paragraph [0063], the word "has" should be changed to --have a--. On line 6 of paragraph [0064], the word "them" should be deleted. On line 10 of paragraph [0064], the second occurrence of the word "the" should be deleted. On the second line of paragraph [0066], the word "forces" should be changed to --force--, and also in this paragraph, on line 10, "the" should be changed to
--The--. On line 10 of paragraph [0067], the word --the-- should be inserted after "in". On the first line of paragraph [0071], the word "is" should be changed to --are--. On the second line of paragraph [0073], it appears that either --one-- or --two-- should be inserted after "to". On line 13 of paragraph [0073], the word "the" should be deleted, and also in this paragraph, on line 14 thereof, the comma after "power" should be deleted. On line 15 of paragraph [0073], the first occurrence of the word "the" should again be deleted. On line 6 of paragraph [0075], "handoff" should be changed to --handed off--, and also on this line, --a-- should be inserted after the word "using". On line 8 of paragraph [0075], the word "is" should be changed to --in--. On line 3 of paragraph [0076], --such as-- should be inserted before the word "smoke". On line 4 of paragraph [0077], the first occurrence of the word "is" should be deleted. On line 3 of paragraph [0078], it appears that the word "class" should be changed to --glass--. On line 3 of paragraph [0080], "allocated to" should be changed to --allocate two--, and on line 5 of this paragraph, the word "rival" should be changed to --arrival--. On the second line of paragraph [0082], the word --be-- should be inserted after "may". On line 3 of paragraph [0083], the word "is" should be changed to --are--. On line 4 of paragraph [0086], the word "are" should be changed to --is--, and also in this paragraph, on line 7 thereof, the word "appreciates" should be changed to --will appreciate--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 4 of claim 1, the word --being-- should be inserted after "code".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
On the first line of claim 7, "the first channel" lacks antecedent basis, i.e., it appears that the word "first" should be changed to --primary--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Notargiacomo et al (USPAP 2021/0345143) in view of Mueck et al (USPAP 2018/0132111).
As to claim 1, Notargiacomo et al discloses
an apparatus comprising:
at least one processor (see paragraphs [0005] through [0007]); and
at least one memory (see paragraphs [0006] through [0007]) including computer program code;
the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform:
allocating a primary channel and a secondary channel to a Citizens Broadband radio Service device CBSD (note paragraphs [0058] through [0060], [0067], [0074] and [0082] and also figure 5B of Notargiacomo et al which shows a plurality of CBSD channels 420, 425 and 430 which are used for allocating primary and secondary channels, note in particular the indication in this reference that an allocated channel can be revoked, i.e., the allocated channel which is revoked can be interpreted as the claimed primary channel, and note also the indication that a remaining subset of channels is kept in reserve, i.e., the reserve channels can be interpreted as the secondary channel which is used in the event that the primary channel allocation is revoked), wherein a call is placed on the primary channel (again, the allocated channel in Notargiacomo et al which gets revoked when an incumbent needs to use that channel can be interpreted as the claimed primary channel, note that the user of such primary channel inherently or obviously uses it to place a call);
monitoring the primary and secondary channels to detect arrival of an incumbent (to the extent not disclosed by Notargiacomo et al, monitoring of the CBSD channels shown in figure 5B would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to monitor the channels of a CBSD, one example of this well-known concept being disclosed by Mueck et al, note paragraph [0073] of this reference which discloses using an ESC 715 for detecting when an incumbent begins using one of the shared channels of a CBSD, i.e., one of ordinary skill in the art would have obviously recognized that the primary and secondary channels in Notargiacomo et al need to be monitored in order to know when an incumbent begins using either or both of these channels);
determining whether the incumbent has been detected (as noted above, it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to monitor the channels of a CBSD, one example of this well-known concept being disclosed by Mueck et al, note paragraph [0073] of this reference which discloses using an ESC 715 for detecting when an incumbent begins using one of the shared channels of a CBSD, and when such incumbent begins using one of the shared CBSD channels shown in figure 5B of Notargiacomo et al, such will be detected and therefore determined); and
upon detection of the incumbent, handing off the call to the secondary channel (obviously in Notargiacomo et al, if the incumbent begins using the above-noted primary channel which is being used for placing a call by a user, such can obviously be detected in view of the disclosure by Mueck et al, at which point the call should obviously be handed off to one of the above-noted reserve channels, i.e., the claimed secondary channel, described by Notargiacomo et al, note in particular what is indicated in paragraph [0059] of this reference).
As to claim 2, to the extent that Notargiacomo et al does not indicate that the above-noted call being placed by a user is an emergency call, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art who would have easily recognized that such a call can be any type of call, i.e., a regular call or an emergency call, note in particular paragraphs [0025] through [0031] of Wong et al (USPAP 2018/0295522] and paragraphs [0060] through [0062] of Hinc et al (USPAP 2020/0037211), as two examples of placing an emergency call using a CBSD channel.
As to claim 3, note that CBSD channels 420, 425 and 430 shown in figure 5B of Notargiacomo et al, any two of which can be interpreted as the claimed primary and secondary channel, as noted above, are allocated to corresponding logical CBSDs (a logical CBSD is being interpreted by the examiner as a software-defined representation of a physical radio transmitter operating in the CBRS band), and note that such logical CBSDs are included on a physically deployed eNB 105A.
As to claim 4, because the above-noted primary and secondary channels shown in figure 5B of Notargiacomo et al are included on the same physically deployed eNB 105A, they will inherently be in an overlapping cell coverage area.
As to claim 5, to the extent not disclosed by Notargiacomo et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the above-noted primary and secondary channels should be spatially separated, the reason being that the primary channel is the channel that is revoked and the secondary channel is the channel that will be used as the backup channel, i.e., the reserved channel described by Notargiacomo et al.
As to claim 6, to the extent not disclosed by Notargiacomo et al, forcing the above-noted first logical CBSD to shut down when its allocation has been revoked would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that such is the typical way of handing off a user from one CBSD channel to another, of which fact official notice is taken by the examiner.
As to claim 7, note paragraphs [0059] through [0061] of Notargiacomo et al which discloses receiving a request to allocate the primary and secondary channels to the CBSD, and note further that the determining and allocating functions recited on the last six lines of claim 7 will be either inherent or obvious in Notargiacomo et al, i.e., one of ordinary skill in the art would obviously know that the frequency spacing of the primary and secondary channels needs to be of a sufficient separation in order to perform the above-noted handing off from the primary channel to the reserved channel, i.e., the claimed secondary channel.
As to claims 8-14, all of the limitations of these method claims would have been obvious from Notargiacomo et al in view of Mueck et al using the same analysis as set forth above in the rejection of claims 1-7.
As to claim 15, all of the limitations of this claim would have been obvious from Notargiacomo et al in view of Mueck et al using the same analysis as set forth above in the rejection of claims 1-7, and note what is indicated in paragraphs [0006] through [0007] of Notargiacomo et al regarding the use of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having software stored thereon.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Syed et al (USPAP 2019/0394678) discloses another example of a Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) network which uses handoff between primary and secondary channels, note what is indicated in paragraphs [0013] through [0018], [0058], [0093] and [0122] of this reference.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, REGIS J BETSCH, can be reached at (571)270-7101. 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.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836 June 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights