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 Appeal Brief
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 03/30/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/GARY MUI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Applicant's submission filed on 06/20/25 was previously entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's argument that Garcia fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., distinguishing from the total amount of subcarrier interference what portion (or not) is due to wireless interference [Remarks pg. 6 par. 1-2]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant’s argument that Lee fails to show specifically due to interference from wireless comm … and not due to interference from sources other than wireless comm in proximity to the network device [Remarks pg. 7 par. 2], Examiner refers Applicant to the below added reference Van Lieshout.
Examiner additionally notes Applicant appears to be giving the independent claims a narrower and more specific meaning that is not warranted by the claim wording. Specifically, when discussing Garcia, Applicant refers to distinguishing wireless vs other sources [pg. 6 par. 1] and when discussing Lee, Applicant similarly refers to wireless sources vs other sources [pg. 7 par. 2]. The reason why Examiner did not address that question is that the claim merely requires the system to distinguish wireless communication in proximity to the network device from those not in proximity to the network device. The interpretation that Applicant appears to present is simply not required by the claim wording.
Regarding dependent claims 3 and 13 [Remarks pg. 8 par. 2], Examiner clarified the rejection to indicate Garcia discloses the grouping and Lee discloses the wireless aspect. Examiner additionally notes that Lee discloses an FFT operation whereby the subcarrier frequencies are separated and grouped into sub-bands [par. 0067], which also implies a type of grouping.
Regarding dependent claims 4/14 and 7-9/17-19, Applicant again argues Garcia does not address the source [Remarks pg. 8 par. 3, pg. 9 par. 1]. The extent to which source is required by the independent claim is discussed above.
Regarding dependent claims 8 and 18 [Remarks pg. 9 par. 1], Examiner further clarified the rejection below.
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 1-7, 9-10 and 11-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (US 20210058201 A1, cited by Applicant of Record) in view of Lee (US 20190190622 A1) and Van Lieshout (EP 2139287 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Garcia discloses an apparatus [fig. 2, 4 no. 405, 410, 415] in a communications network [fig. 1, 3-4, par. 0054] propagating radio frequency (RF) communications (Wireless communication paths (i.e., RF (in this context)), 802.11, Bluetooth, OFDM [par. 0041, 45, 47-48]) comprising a plurality of subcarriers [par. 0048, 55], the apparatus comprising a processor [fig. 2 no. 201] configured to receive noise metrics associated with a network device [fig. 3 no. 315, 320, 4 no. 420], and use the noise metrics to measure [par. 0055, 57] … specifically due to interference (RF signals create ingress interference [par. 0060, 64-65]).
Although Garcia discloses noise metrics and interference, as discussed above, Garcia does not explicitly disclose for each of the plurality of subcarriers, the magnitude of noise ingress into the network device specifically due to interference from wireless communications … due to interference. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Lee.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses:
for each of the plurality of subcarriers, the magnitude of noise ingress into the network device specifically due to interference from wireless communications … due to interference [par. 0067].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Garcia with Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of performing a more sophisticated noise filtering operation based on the noise information [Lee par. 0067].
Although Garcia and Lee disclose noise metrics, interference, and subcarriers, as discussed above, Garcia and Lee do not explicitly disclose from wireless communications in proximity to the network device … in proximity to the network device and not … from sources other than the wireless communications in proximity to the network device. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Van Lieshout.
In the same field of endeavor, Van Lieshout discloses:
from wireless communications in proximity to the network device … in proximity to the network device and not … from sources other than the wireless communications in proximity to the network device [fig. 6B no. S6-S7, par. 0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Garcia and Lee with Van Lieshout. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of maintaining availability of the devices and limiting unnecessary signaling [Van Lieshout par. 0009].
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Garcia, Lee, and Van Lieshout disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Garcia further discloses:
comprising the network device [fig. 3-4, par. 0053-54].
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Garcia, Lee, and Van Lieshout disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Garcia and Lee further disclose:
where the processor measures the severity of noise ingress into the network device specifically due to interference from wireless [Lee, as discussed above] communications based upon separating the plurality of subcarriers into a first group of subcarriers and a second group of subcarriers [Garcia par. 0048, 94-95, fig. 6, 8].
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Garcia, Lee, and Van Lieshout disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Garcia and Lee further disclose:
where the processor measures the severity of noise ingress into the network device specifically due to interference from wireless [Lee, as discussed above] communications based upon a comparison of noise metrics in the first group of subcarriers to noise metrics in the second group of subcarriers [Garcia par. 0049-50].
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Garcia, Lee, and Van Lieshout disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Garcia further discloses:
where the measurement comprises a metric representing a magnitude of interference from wireless communications [par. 0055].
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Garcia, Lee, and Van Lieshout disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Garcia and Lee further disclose:
where the measurement comprises a metric representing the dynamics of interference from wireless [Lee, as discussed above] communications [Garcia par. 0055, 59-60].
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Garcia, Lee, and Van Lieshout disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Garcia and Lee further disclose:
where the metric representing the dynamics of interference from wireless [Lee, as discussed above] communications is based on a standard deviation of noise metrics within a first range of subcarriers in the signal [Garcia par. 0049, fig. 8, 12].
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Garcia, Lee, and Van Lieshout disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Garcia further discloses:
where the average is normalized using a noise metrics from outside the first range of subcarriers (Skew and threshold [par. 0087]).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Garcia, Lee, and Van Lieshout disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Garcia and Lee further disclose:
where the processor uses the measurement of the severity of noise ingress into the network device specifically due to interference from wireless [Lee, as discussed above] communications to perform at least one of a configuration of the network device or a configuration of at least one of a signal sent to the network device [Garcia par. 0060].
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia, Lee, and Van Lieshout as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively, and further in view of Hui (US 20090016425 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Garcia, Lee, and Van Lieshout disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Garcia and Lee disclose where the metric representing the dynamics of interference from wireless [Lee, as discussed above] communications is … respective … of noise metrics within a first range of subcarriers in the signal [Garcia par. 0049, fig. 8, 12], and as discussed above, Garcia, Lee, and Van Lieshout do not explicitly disclose an average of … standard deviations. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Hui.
In the same field of endeavor, Hui discloses:
an average of … standard deviations [par. 0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Garcia, Lee, and Van Lieshout with Hui. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of compressing channel state feedback in an adaptive manner and maintaining reasonable accuracy and complexity [Hui par. 0001, 05].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhu (US 20200235833 A1) and Agee (US 20160087767 A1) generally disclose subcarrier interference on the receiver.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
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, Gary Mui can be reached on 571-270-1420. 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights