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 Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s Argument: Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the amended claim 1 is now similar to the allowed claims 8 and 15 and are in condition for allowance..
Examiner’s Response: The arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are not persuasive. Claim 1, in contrast to the devices claimed in claims 8 and 15, recites a method with multiple conditions, i.e. contingent limitations. The amendments reciting the coex communication compatible with a second communications protocol is already covered in Wagholikar regarding Bluetooth. Examiner notes that for this claim, “if the first duration is not sufficient to cover the actual duration, prior to the coex communications, transmitting a second CTS-to-self frame with a second duration” is a contingent limitation that does not require support in the event that the first duration is determined to be sufficient to cover the actual duration. Vig in Figure 6 shows a case in which the duration may be determined to be sufficient in which case the steps responding to the duration being insufficient would not occur. The reference applied supports the case that the duration is sufficient to cover the actual duration.
Examiner recommends overcoming the prior art by reciting the claim limitations without words such as “in response to” or “if.” See the Examiner’s note below near the Conclusion section for an example.
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.
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, 2, 4 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagholikar et al. US 20120276938 A1, hereinafter Wagholikar, and further in view of Vig et al. US 20170347373 A1, hereinafter Vig.
Regarding claim 1, Wagholikar teaches:
teaches A method, comprising: by operation of IEEE 802.11 wireless compatible (WLAN) circuits, determining an estimated duration for future communications of a coexisting wireless circuit (coex communications) formed in the same device as the WLAN circuits, the coex communications being compatible with a second communications protocol different than WLAN ([Wagholikar; 0043] “Referring to FIG. 6, coexistence circuit 206 of multi-technology wireless communication device 102 causes WLAN transceiver” & [Wagholikar; 0050] “In some embodiments, the duration parameter indicates the duration of the following Bluetooth interval 402 [second communications protocol]. In other embodiments, the duration parameter indicates the duration of the current WLAN interval 404.”),
in response to at least the medium being free, transmitting a first clear-to-send-to-self (CTS-to-self) frame at an estimated start time for the coex communications, ([Wagholikar; 0043] “Referring to FIG. 6, coexistence circuit 206 of multi-technology wireless communication device 102 causes WLAN transceiver 202 to transmit a CTS-to-self frame 602 just prior to the start of each Bluetooth interval 402.”),
the first CTS-to-self frame having a first duration equivalent to the estimated duration for the future coex communications, ([Wagholikar; 0043] “The duration parameter of each CTS-to-self frame 602 indicates the duration of the subsequent [future] Bluetooth interval 402.”).
However, Wagholikar does not explicitly teach in response to receiving at least a coex active indication that indicates an actual start for the coex communications, determining if the duration of the first CTS-to-self frame is sufficient to cover an actual duration for the actual coex communications; and if the first duration is not sufficient to cover the actual duration, transmitting a second CTS-to-self frame with a second duration that extends beyond the first duration sufficient to cover the actual duration.
In the same field of endeavor, Vig teaches in response to at least a coex active indication provided at an actual start for the coex communications [Vig; ¶0029-30, 610-620, CTS-2-SELF packet provided indicating coex active indication for BT communication, see Figure 7 provided at t1 start of BT segment corresponding to start for the coex communication], determining if the duration of the first CTS-to-self frame is sufficient to cover an actual duration for the actual coex communications; ([Vig; ¶0031 “ the WiFi module determines whether another medium request for requesting additional time slice has been received from the BT module (step S640),” wherein if it is determined no request is received as in ¶0033, this corresponds to determination that the duration of the CTS-to-Self frame is sufficient), and if the first duration is not sufficient to cover the actual duration, prior to the coex communications, transmitting a second CTS-to-self frame with a second duration that extends beyond the first duration sufficient to cover the actual duration. (Examiner notes that this is a contingent limitation that does not require support in the prior art if the specific condition is not fulfilled. In Figure 6 of Vig, 640-660, this shows that the determination of the BT duration being insufficient (the “Yes”) branch may never occur, in which case there is no determination of the first duration being not sufficient. Therefore this conditional limitation does not have patentable weight as the method of Figure 6 may pertain to a case in which this condition is never fulfilled.).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Wagholikar for WLAN and BT coex communication and sending of a CTS-to-self packet, with the system of Vig for determining if the CTS-to-self packet covers the whole duration as Vig teaches the motivation [Vig; 0042] “Advantageously, the buffering time allows the CTS-2-SELF packet to be sent out in time, which solves the problem of WiFi downstream throughput degradation in the conventional design. Furthermore, the present application realizes efficient utilization of the air time, by using the CF-END packet to give back the air time to WiFi communications in response to early termination of the BT communications.” One of ordinary skill would see the combination potential with Wagholikar [Wagholikar; 0044] “That is, coexistence circuit 306 allows the WLAN transceiver 302 to transmit no WLAN signals 208 during the subsequent Bluetooth interval 402.”, and the motivation from Vig, and have a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination.
Regarding claim 2, Wagholikar and Vig teach The method of claim 1,
Wagholikar further teaches further including: in response to the WLAN circuits receiving a predetermined request for WLAN activity [¶0028 coex request includes WLAN durations corresponding to request for WLAN activity], determining if the WLAN activity would extend beyond an estimated start time of the coex communications, if the WLAN activity would extend beyond the estimated start time, not execute the WLAN activity, and if the WLAN activity would not extend beyond the estimated start time, execute the WLAN activity.
([Wagholikar; 0039] “Multi-technology wireless communication device 102 communicates with Bluetooth communication device 106 over wireless Bluetooth link 110 according to coexistence schedule 214 and timer 216. FIG. 4 illustrates a coexistence schedule 214 according to one embodiment. Coexistence schedule 214 consists of Bluetooth intervals 402 and WLAN intervals 404” & [Wagholikar; 0040] Coexistence schedule 214 is known to multi-technology wireless communication device 102. Therefore coexistence circuit 206 can control the transmissions of WLAN transceiver 202 and Bluetooth transceiver 204 deterministically according to coexistence schedule 214 and timer 216 so as to avoid interference between the transmissions. In particular, coexistence circuit 206 allows WLAN transceiver 202 to transmit WLAN signals 208 only during WLAN intervals 404, and allows Bluetooth transceiver 204 to transmit Bluetooth signals 210 only during Bluetooth intervals 402.” This shows a schedule with predetermined times for transmission, and if a WLAN activity would fall into a Bluetooth(coex) communication interval, not allowing the transmission, but if it falls wholly into a WLAN time period, allowing the communication.).
Regarding claim 4, Wagholikar and Vig teach The method of claim 1,
Wagholikar further teaches further including: by operation of the WLAN circuits receiving coex communication data from the coex wireless circuit; ([Wagholikar; 0041] “coexistence circuit 206 of multi-technology wireless communication device 102 causes WLAN transceiver 202 to transmit coexistence request messages.”
and determining the estimated start time for the coex communications from the coex communication data. ([Wagholikar; 0041] “Each coexistence request message indicates a duration of one of the WLAN intervals 404, or a duration of one of the Bluetooth intervals 402.” & [Wagholikar; 0043] “causes WLAN transceiver 202 to transmit a CTS-to-self frame 602 just prior to the start of each Bluetooth interval 402. The duration parameter of each CTS-to-self frame 602 indicates the duration of the subsequent Bluetooth interval 402.” Showing a known start time.).
Regarding claim 5, Wagholikar and Vig teach The method of claim 1,
Wagholikar further teaches further including: by operation of the WLAN circuits receiving coex communication data from the coex wireless circuit; ([Wagholikar; 0041] “coexistence circuit 206 of multi-technology wireless communication device 102 causes WLAN transceiver 202 to transmit coexistence request messages.”
and determining the estimated duration for the coex communications from the coex communication data. ([Wagholikar; 0041] “Each coexistence request message indicates a duration of one of the WLAN intervals 404, or a duration of one of the Bluetooth intervals 402.”).
Regarding claim 6, Wagholikar and Vig teach The method of claim 1,
Wagholikar further teaches further including determining the estimated duration for the coex communications from historical data from previous activity of the coex circuit. ([Wagholikar; 0039] “Coexistence schedule 214 consists of Bluetooth intervals 402 and WLAN intervals 404. In general, the schedule is periodic” Where periodic means historical durations will indicate future duration. [Wagholikar; 0048] “multi-technology wireless communication device 102 determines when the Bluetooth interval 402 has ended. In particular, coexistence circuit 206 of multi-technology wireless communication device 102 consults timer 216 and the coexistence schedule 214 stored in memory 212” Showing using the schedule to determine the estimated duration of communication.).
Regarding claim 7, Wagholikar and Vig teach The method of claim 1,
Wagholikar further teaches wherein: the coex wireless circuit is selected from the group of: a Bluetooth compatible circuit, ([Wagholikar; 0026] “However, while the disclosed embodiments are described in terms of WLAN and Bluetooth technologies, the disclosed techniques are applicable to other wireless technologies as well. The wireless technologies can include wireless non-WLAN signals other than Bluetooth.” & [Wagholikar; 0032] “Multi-technology wireless communication device 102 communicates with Bluetooth communication device 106 over a wireless Bluetooth link 110.”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagholikar et al. US 20120276938 A1, hereinafter Wagholikar, further in view of Vig et al. US 20170347373 A1, hereinafter Vig, and even further in view of Qin et al. US 20100008347 A1, hereinafter Qin.
Regarding claim 3, Wagholikar and Vig teach The method of claim 2,
However, neither Wagholikar or Vig explicitly teach wherein: the predetermined request includes a request-to-send (RTS) frame from another WLAN device; and executing the access includes transmitting a clear-to-send (CTS) frame in response to the RTS frame.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Qin teaches wherein: the predetermined request includes a request-to-send (RTS) frame from another WLAN device; ([Qin; 0043] “The method 400 starts at a block 402, wherein the receiver receives a request-to-send (RTS) frame from a transmitter. The RTS message includes the time block to reserve for transmission.),
and executing the access includes transmitting a clear-to-send (CTS) frame in response to the RTS frame. ([Qin; 0044] “Next at a block 406, the receiver determines whether the channel is available at the receiver side for the time proposed by the RTS message based on the scanning.” & [Qin; 0046] “If the requested time is available, … the receiver transmits a clear-to-send (CTS) message confirming the reservation proposed by the RTS message for one time.”).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would find it obvious to combine the methods of Wagholikar/Vig for not allowing WLAN transmission to go into a scheduled coex transmission period, with the RTS/CTS method of Qin for requesting time, checking availability of said time, and confirming or denying the request as Qin teaches [Qin; 0016] “These embodiments address the problem of medium access control for transmitting isochronous traffic in a wireless ad hoc network.” Where this helps cover for the need of Wagholikar [Wagholikar; 0041] “However, coexistence schedule 214 is not known to WLAN communication devices 104. To prevent interference between the transmissions of WLAN communication devices 104 and Bluetooth signals 210, coexistence circuit 206 of multi-technology wireless communication device 102 causes WLAN transceiver 202 to transmit coexistence request messages.” So one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8-20 allowed.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner recommends amending claim 1 in the following way:
A method, comprising: by operation of IEEE 802.11 wireless compatible (WLAN) circuits, determining an estimated duration for future communications of a coexisting wireless circuit (coex communications) formed in the same device as the WLAN circuits, determining at least a medium being free, transmitting a first clear-to-send-to-self (CTS-to-self) frame at an estimated start time for the coex communications, the CTS-to-self frame having a first duration equivalent to the estimated duration for the coex communications, determining is provided at an actual start for the coex communications, determining not sufficient to cover an actual duration for the actual coex communications prior to the coex communications,; and transmitting, prior to the coex communications, a second CTS-to-self frame with a second duration that extends beyond the first duration sufficient to cover the actual duration.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L. VOGEL whose telephone number is (303)297-4322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30 PM MT.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached on 571-272-3905. 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.
/JAY L VOGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478