DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Applicant’s arguments submitted on 06/05/2026 have been received and considered by the examiner.
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.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues on page 8 of their remarks that “various elements of claim 1 are absent in the cited references”, pointing to the limitation that recites “adjusting the adjustable gain attribute of a power amplifier and the adjustable LNA gain attribute of an LNA to reduce the effect of an interference metric wherein each of the power amplifier and LNA remain operational”, adding “[a]s explicitly acknowledged in the Office Action (at pages 4-5), Lai fails to disclose this claim element” (Applicant Remarks, p. 8).
However, the Examiner disagrees with this characterization. Although the cited portions of the Office Action acknowledge that Lai alone does not disclose this entire claim limitation, they do not assert that “Lai fails to disclose this claim limitation” entirely, as the Applicant writes. Rather, page 4 of the pending non-final rejection cites Lai’s disclosure of “adjust[ing] a transmission power”, which corresponds to “adjust[ing] ... to reduce an effect of the interference metric” (Office Action p. 4; cf. Lai col. 5, lines 32-38). In other words, Lai teaches adjusting transmission power in response to interference; it only lacks an explicit teaching that this is accomplished by adjusting “the adjustable gain attribute of the power amplifier and the adjustable LNA gain attribute of the LNA” while “each of the power amplifier and the LNA remain operational” to accomplish this. But Vavelidis supplies precisely this missing limitation in describing “PGAs [power gain amplifiers]” and a “LNA” with “programmable” and “adjustable” gains (Office Action p. 5; cf. Vavelidis, 0061-0062). It is the combination of Lai’s teaching regarding adjusting transmission power in response to interference with Vavelidis’ disclosure of adjustable gain for such amplifiers that together renders the claimed invention obvious. Therefore, because the rejection is based on the combination of Lai and Vavelidis, not Vavelidis alone as the Applicant suggests, the pending rejection is properly maintained. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Applicant goes on to assert that “Vavelidis operates in [a] wholly distinct manner from the claimed subject matter and does not support the propositions for which it is cited, and instead relates to a calibration scheme for a multi-band RF receiver” which is “performed ... when a new desired channel is selected for operation [emphasis in original]” (Remarks, p. 8-9).
However, again, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the premise that Vavelidis was cited to address the entire limitation at issue here. Rather, Vavelidis was only cited to teach (i) adjustable gain of the LNA / power amplifier, and (ii) use of the LNA as the receiving amplifier. It is these features from Vavelidis, combined with Lai’s teaching of adjusting signal power to mitigate interference, that render the claimed limitation obvious, not Vavelidis alone. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, the distinction the Applicant attempts to draw between the “calibration scheme of Vavelidis” and the claimed invention is not convincing. The purpose of Vavelidis’ calibration method is to eliminate “RF interference to achieve NF and/or linearity performance” (Vavelidis, 0061). This is indistinguishable from the claimed practice of “limit[ing] the aggressor radio’s transmit power so the interference is reduced” (Specification, 0034). Thus, the pending rejection based on Lai in view of Vavelidis is properly maintained.
Lastly, the Applicant argues that “the Office Action (at pages 5-6) mistakenly conflates the programmable gain amplifiers (PGAs) of the multi-band RF receiver of Vavelidis with the power amplifier of claim 1, which has an adjustable gain attribute that determines a transmit power [emphasis in original]” (Remarks, p. 12). The Examiner thanks the Applicant explaining of the difference between the PGAs in receiving radios and transmitting radios, but this explanation again appears to miss the point of combining Lai and Vavelidis. Although the Examiner agrees that the purpose of the receiving PGA in Vavelidis differs from the purpose of the claimed transmission power amplifier, a skilled artisan would recognize that, although their purposes may differ, the design of a PGA is fundamentally analogous, if not identical to, the transmission power amplifier in Vavelidis. The adjustable gain of the receiving amplifier in Vavelidis is therefore equally applicable to amplifiers for both transmission and reception, despite their different purposes. Thus, the rejection based on Lai in view of Vavelidis is properly maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al. (US 11,324,048 B2, hereinafter “Lai”) in view of Vavelidis et al. (US 2007/0207759 A1, hereinafter “Vavelidis”).
As to Claim 1:
Lai describes a method for adjusting the power of transmissions in a multi-radio device to deconflict transmission and reception.
Specifically, Lai teaches:
An aggressor radio configured to transmit messages
Lai describes “communication circuits 110-1-110-N” which “may perform a plurality of radio activities to transmit or receive wireless RF signals” (Lai, col. 4, lines 46-49). The radio that “transmit[s] ... wireless RF signals” maps to the “aggressor radio”.
A victim radio configured to receive messages
Lai describes “communication circuits 110-1-110-N” which “may perform a plurality of radio activities to transmit or receive wireless RF signals” (Lai, col. 4, lines 46-49). The radio that “receive[s] ... wireless RF signals” maps to the “victim radio”.
The aggressor radio and the victim radio share a communications resource
Lai teaches that “radio activities” for communication circuits 110-1 through 110-N “fall in a predetermined frequency band” (Lai, col. 2, lines 5-6; col. 4, lines 46-49). The “predetermined frequency band” is the “share[d] ... communications resource”.
The coexistence engine is configured to detect whether an interference metric between the aggressor radio and the victim radio is violated when the aggressor radio transmits a transmit message through the communication resource
Lai describes a “coexistence management circuit” that “is configured to determine whether an interference signal related to said at least two radio activities falls in the predetermined frequency band” and “adjust a transmission power or an execution of one of said at least two radio activities” as a result (Lai, col. 2, lines 1-10; col. 5, lines 41-45).
In response to detecting a violation of the interference metric, adjust ... to reduce an effect of the interference metric
Lai teaches that “the coexistence management circuit 120/300 is configured to intelligently determine whether an interference signal related to or resulted from said at least two radio activities falls in a predetermined frequency band, and accordingly determine whether to adjust a transmission power or an execution time of one of said at least two radio activities” (Lai, col. 5, lines 32-38).
The aggressor radio including a power amplifier having an adjustable gain attribute
Lai describes a “RF signal processing device” that “may comprise a power amplifier” as well as “baseband signal processing” that “may comprise ... gain adjustment” (Lai, col. 4, lines 14-15 and 26-29).
The adjustable gain attribute determines a transmit power of transmit messages transmitted by the aggressor radio
Lai describes a “power amplifier” including “baseband processing” with “gain adjustment” (Lai, col. 4, lines 14-15 and 26-29).
Lai does not explicitly disclose:
The victim radio including a front-end low noise amplifier (LNA) having an adjustable LNA gain attribute
The LNA adjustable gain attribute determines a receive sensitivity for receive messages received by the victim radio
Adjust the adjustable gain attribute of the power amplifier and the adjustable LNA gain attribute of the LNA to reduce an effect of the interference
Each of the power amplifier and the LNA are operational when the aggressor radio transmits the transmit message
However, Vavelidis does describe methods to calibrate the front end of a RF device.
Specifically, Vavelidis teaches:
The victim radio including a front-end low noise amplifier (LNA) having an adjustable LNA gain attribute
Vavelidis describes a radio device that may “adjust the gain of a variable gain LNA in the presence of RF interference to achieve NF and/or linearity performance” (Vavelidis, 0061).
The LNA adjustable gain attribute determines a receive sensitivity for receive messages received by the victim radio
Paragraph 0016 of Vavelidis describes the function of the LNA gain which “tunes” it to receive on a “specific frequency range” (Vavelidis, 0016).
Adjust the adjustable gain attribute of the power amplifier and the adjustable LNA gain attribute of the LNA to reduce an effect of the interference
Vavelidis describes a radio device that may “adjust the gain of a variable gain LNA in the presence of RF interference to achieve NF and/or linearity performance” (Vavelidis, 0061).
Each of the power amplifier and the LNA are operational when the aggressor radio transmits the transmit message
Fig. 1C and 1D in Vavelidis shown a radio operating with multiple “PGAs” (elements 165a, 165b, etc.) and “LNAs” (150a, 150b, etc.). Vavelidis also states the gain of each component is “programmable” and “adjustable”, respectively, as opposed to disabling them (Vavelidis, 0061-0062).
Vavelidis also teaches the following claim limitations more explicitly than Lai:
A power amplifier having an adjustable gain attribute
Figs. 1C and 1D in Vavelidis show “programmable gain amplifiers (PGAs)” which Vavelidis describes as having a “gain” that “may be digitally programmable (Vavelidis, 0062). These are analogous to “a power amplifier having an adjustable gain attribute”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Lai’s method for dynamically adjusting transmission and reception parameters to radios including receivers that use LNAs. LNAs allow for adjustable gain at a receiver, so they can seamlessly integrate into a scheme for configuring a separate transmitter and receiver to coexist.
As to Claim 2:
Lai teaches:
The interference metric is simultaneous transmission of the transmit message and a receive message through the communications resource
Lai teaches detection of interference when “at least two radio activities to occur [sic] in a subsequent packet time” (Lai, col. 2, lines 1-10; col. 6, lines 18-19).
As to Claim 3:
Lai teaches:
The interference metric is a request by the aggressor radio to send the transmit message through the communications resource
Lai states that the coexistence management circuit “is configured to detect whether at least two radio activities to occur or will occur [sic] in a subsequent packet time according to the latest received TX/RX requests” (Lai, col. 5, lines 24-30, lines 32-35).
As to Claim 4:
Lai teaches:
The interference metric is a request by the victim radio to receive a receive message through the communications resource
Lai states that the coexistence management circuit “is configured to detect whether at least two radio activities to occur or will occur [sic] in a subsequent packet time according to the latest received TX/RX requests” (Lai, col. 5, lines 24-30, lines 32-35).
As to Claim 5:
Lai teaches:
The interference metric is a comparison between a priority level of a receive message received by the victim radio and a priority level of the transmit message transmitted by the aggressor radio through the communications resource
Lai states that the “arbiter” circuit “is configured to determine whether to adjust the transmission power of said one of said at least two radio activities or to adjust the execution time of said one of said at least two radio activities according to priorities of said at least two radio activities” (Lai, col. 6, lines 10-12; col. 8, lines 15-21, 41-45).
As to Claim 6:
Lai teaches:
The interference metric is an antenna isolation between a first antenna coupled to the aggressor radio and a second antenna coupled to the victim radio
Lai teaches that “the emission noise estimator 311 may estimate the power and the frequency of the interference signal according to ... the isolation between the communications circuit performing the uplink radio activity and the communications circuit performing the downlink activity” (Lai, col. 6, lines 20-29).
As to Claim 7:
Lai teaches:
The interference metric is a frequency separation between a first communication channel of the aggressor radio and a second communications channel of the victim radio
Lai teaches that “the coexistence management circuit is configured to determine whether an interference signal related to said at least two radio activities falls in a predetermined frequency band” (Lai, col. 2, lines 3-6; col. 6, lines 12-15, 18-19). Measuring whether two messages occur in the same band is the same as measuring separation.
As to Claim 8:
Lai teaches:
The interference metric is a modulation type and a signal bandwidth of the transmit message and a receive message
Lai teaches that “the emission noise estimator” estimates noise (i.e. “interference”) based on “modulation” being “higher than a predetermined level” or “a TX request” which “may comprise information regarding ... transmission bandwidth” (Lai, col. 6, lines 20-25; col. 8, lines 6-13, 64-67).
As to Claim 9:
Lai teaches:
The coexistence engine is further configured to adjust an additional attribute of the aggressor radio and/or the victim radio in response to the violated interference metric
Lai teaches that the “coexistence management circuit” is “configured to adjust ... an execution time of one of said at least two radio activities” in addition to the transmission power (Lai, col. 2, lines 1-10; col. 5, lines 41-45).
As to Claim 10:
Lai teaches:
The coexistence engine is further configured to reduce the transmit power of the transmit message each time the victim radio receives a more important message and transmission of the transmit message has not started
Fig. 4 in Lai shows a flow chart for a method to adjust transmission power or execution time for “at least two radio activities to occur”. Lai further clarifies that this may occur “when the priority of this radio activity is lower than the others” (Lai col. 8, lines 40-45).
As to Claim 11:
Lai teaches:
The coexistence engine is further configured to stop the transmit message from the aggressor radio each time the interference metric is violated, and the transmit message has started and a transmit message continuation enabled is false
The “coexistence management circuit” described in Lai is capable of “aborting execution of the radio activity” in response to detecting interference (Lai, col. 5, lines 32-37; col. 8, lines 41-44). Also, Fig. 4 in Lai shows a process a device can use to adjust transmission power or execution time.
As to Claim 16:
Lai teaches:
The messages are wirelessly transmitted and received
Lai teaches that each RF device “is configured to provide wireless communication services” (Lai, col. 1, lines 64-66).
As to Claim 17:
Lai teaches:
The device is a wireless device
Lai describes a “radio transceiver 210” that “is configured to transmit and receive wireless radio frequency (RF) signals” (Lai, col. 4 lines 1-2).
As to Claim 18:
Lai teaches:
The aggressor radio is a radio transmitter (TX) and the victim radio is a radio receiver (RX)
Lai describes a scenario where “one radio activity is an ongoing uplink radio activity and another radio activity is a forthcoming downlink radio activity” (Lai, col. 5, lines 41-45).
The radios communicate using at least one of a wireless local area network (WLAN) signal, a Bluetooth signal, or an RF signal
Lai teaches that the “communications circuits” may be “a Bluetooth communications circuit” or “transmit and receive wireless radio frequency (RF) signals”, meaning only “a wireless local area network (WLAN) signal” from the claim is not explicitly taught.
As to Claim 19:
Lai teaches:
One or more antennas, configured to carry the transmitted message and the received message
Fig. 2 in Lai shows an example device which includes a “Radio transceiver” that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to include “one or more antennas, configured to carry the transmitted and the received message”.
As to Claim 20:
Lai teaches:
The communication resource is at least one of: a frequency spectrum or a physical antenna
The “communication resource” described in Lai is a “predetermined frequency band” which maps to “a frequency spectrum” from the list of “at least one of: a frequency spectrum or a physical antenna”).
As to Claim 21:
From the list of:
The interference metric includes one or more of an interference magnitude, statistics on historical interference magnitudes, statistics on historical collisions, a received signal strength, or statistics on historical received signal strengths
Lai at least teaches:
The interference metric includes ... an interference magnitude ... [and] a received signal strength
Lai states that “the reception link-budget may be determined according to the Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) of the received signal ... and/or the SNR of the received signal” (Lai, col. 7, lines 62-66; col. 8, lines 4-5).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai (US 11,324,048 B2, hereinafter “Lai”) in view of Vavelidis (US 2007/0207759 A1) and further in view of Luo et al. (US 2022/0369357 A1, hereinafter “Luo”) and Dayal et al. (US 9,282,462 B2, hereinafter “Dayal”).
As to Claim 12:
Lai teaches:
The coexistence engine is further configured
Lai describes a coexistence management circuit (Lai, col. 1, lines 66-67; col. 2, line 1).
The victim radio and the aggressor radio
Lai describes a scenario where “one radio activity is an ongoing uplink radio activity and another radio activity is a forthcoming downlink radio activity” (Lai, col. 5, lines 41-45).
The ... status reduces an allowed power of the transmit message from the aggressor radio
Lai teaches that “the coexistence management circuit is configured to adjust a transmission power or an execution time of one of said at least two radio activities.... For example, when one radio activity is an ongoing uplink radio activity and another radio activity is a forthcoming downlink radio activity” (Lai, col. 2, lines 6-10; col. 5, lines 41-45).
The combination of Lai and Vavelidis does not explicitly disclose:
A conditional grant status
However, Luo does describe a method for overriding an existing grant configuration using a conditional grant.
Specifically, Luo teaches:
A conditional grant status
Paragraph 0005 of Luo describes a wireless node sending a conditional grant that can potentially override another grant.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the conditional grant taught in Luo to reconfigure the transmission power of the aggressor radio disclosed in Lai. A conditional grant changes or modifies an existing grant configuration, meaning it can achieve precisely this with respect to transmission power.
The combination of Lai, Vavelidis, and Luo also does not explicitly disclose:
Historical interference monitoring data and performance data
However, Dayal does describe a method to diagnose and correct interference in a multi-radio setup to achieve coexistence.
Specifically, Dayal teaches:
Historical interference monitoring data and performance data
Dayal describes “calculating future subframes expected to experience coexistence issues based on previous subframes estimated to have experienced coexistence issues” (Dayal; col. 3, lines 3-5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the prior subframes that suffered from interference disclosed in Dayal as a criteria for determining whether to reduce transmission power via Lai’s method. Historical interference data can help predict when interference is likely to occur again, making it a useful parameter for interference predictions.
Claim(s) 13 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai (US 11,324,048 B2) in view of Vavelidis (US 2007/0207759 A1) and further in view of Dayal (US 9,282,462 B2).
As to Claim 13:
Lai teaches:
The coexistence engine is further configured to set a continuation enabled status based on ... the victim radio and the aggressor radio
Lai teaches that “the arbiter may determine not to adjust the transmission power and execution time” which is analogous to “a continuation enabled status” because it will maintain the status quo (Lai, col. 8, lines 22-27).
The continuation enabled status permits the transmit message from the aggressor radio to complete transmission
Lai teaches that “the arbiter may determine not to adjust the transmission power and execution time” which is analogous to “a continuation enabled status” because it will maintain the status quo and allows transmission to continue uninterrupted (Lai, col. 8, lines 22-27).
The combination of Lai and Vavelidis does not explicitly disclose:
Historical interference monitoring data and performance data
However, Dayal does teach:
Historical interference monitoring data and performance data
Dayal describes “calculating future subframes expected to experience coexistence issues based on previous subframes estimated to have experienced coexistence issues” (Dayal; col. 3, lines 3-5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the historical interference data disclosed in Dayal as an input to Lai’s method for adjusting a signal’s transmission power. Historical interference data can help indicate the likelihood of future interference, so it makes sense to consider it when trying to prevent future interference.
As to Claim 22:
Lai teaches
The coexistence engine is configured to set ... when an interference magnitude that exceeds the predetermined level exists when the received message is being received by the victim radio
Lai describes “adjust[ing] a transmission power or an execution time of one of said at least two radio activities” if “an interference signal ... falls in a predetermined frequency band” which is analogous to the signal’s “interference magnitude ... exceed[ing] the predetermined level” (Lai, col. 2, lines 1-10).
Lai does not explicitly disclose:
Set the front-end LNA gain of the victim radio to have a headroom that avoids received message signal saturation
However, Vavelidis does teach:
Set the adjustable LNA gain attribute to have a headroom that avoids received message signal saturation
Vavelidis describes a radio device that may “adjust the gain of a variable gain LNA in the presence of RF interference to achieve NF and/or linearity performance” (Vavelidis, 0061). Maintaining “linear performance” is another way to describe to creating “headroom that avoids received message signal saturation”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Vavelidis’ practice of modifying LNA gain to avoid signal saturation into Lai’s method for configuring two radios to coexist. Signal saturation makes incoming messages unintelligible, so it makes sense to adjust LNA gain to allow for receiving an ungarbled signal.
The combination of Lai and Vavelidis also does not explicitly disclose:
The statistics on historical collisions show a probability of a collision between the transmit message and the receive message, and the statistics on historical interference magnitudes both exceed predetermined levels
However, Dayal does teach:
The statistics on historical collisions show a probability of a collision between the transmit message and the receive message, and the statistics on historical interference magnitudes both exceed predetermined levels
Dayal describes tracking “the average number of uplink and downlink subframes denied due to coexistence”, which is analogous to “the statistics on historical collisions”, “the probability of a particular subframe being denied” which maps to “a probability of a collision”, and “the number of uplink and downlink subframes denied due to coexistence” which maps to “the statistics on historical interference magnitudes” (Dayal, col. 16, lines 7-15).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the historical interference data disclosed in Dayal as an input to Lai’s method for adjusting a signal’s transmission power. Historical interference data can help indicate the likelihood of future interference, so it makes sense to consider it when trying to prevent future interference.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai (US 11,324,048 B2) in view of Vavelidis (US 2007/0207759 A1) and further in view of Gopal et al. (US 2019/0335538 A1, hereinafter “Gopal”).
As to Claim 14:
Lai teaches:
A first coexistence engine and a second coexistence engine
Fig. 3 in Lai shows a “Transmission power controller” and a “reception link-budget checker 350” which are analogous to first and second coexistence engines (Lai, col. 7, lines 58-62; Fig. 3).
The first coexistence engine is configured to adjust only attributes of the aggressor radio in response to the violated interference method
(“When the amount of transmission power adjustment for the forthcoming uplink radio activity is determined, information regarding the amount of transmission power adjustment may be transmitted to the corresponding communications circuit” (Lai, col. 7, lines 50-54). Also, Fig. 3 in Lai shows a block diagram of a coexistence circuit.
Here, “uplink radio” maps to “the aggressor radio”,
element 340 in Fig. 3, the “Transmission power controller”, maps to “the first coexistence engine configured to adjust only attributes of the aggressor radio” since the uplink radio (i.e. the transmitting radio) is the aggressor, and
“determined” maps to “in response to the violated interference metric”).
The combination of Lai and Vavelidis does not explicitly disclose:
A second coexistence engine configured to adjust only attributes of the victim radio in response to the violated interference metric
However, Gopal does describe a method for sending coexistence information over an intra-device serial bus.
Specifically, Gopal teaches:
A second coexistence engine configured to adjust only attributes of the victim radio in response to the violated interference metric
Lai describes a “coexistence interface” that may “provide information regarding the operation of external LNAs that can be used to configure internal LNAs” (Gopal, 0056-0057).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a second coexistence engine that modifies parameters of the victim radio, as disclosed in Gopal, into Lai’s method for combating interference. Changing parameters of the victim radio can achieve the same results as changing parameters of the aggressor radio.
As to Claim 15:
Lai teaches:
The first coexistence engine and the second coexistence engine are configured to independently detect whether the interference metric between the aggressor radio and the victim radio is violated
Fig. 3 in Lai shows a “Transmission power controller” and a “reception link-budget checker 350” which respectively “determine the amount of transmission power adjustment” and “check if a reception link-budget margin associated with a reception request is enough to allow a received signal to pass” (Lai, col. 7, lines 50-54, 58-62). Also, Fig. 3 in Lai shows a block diagram of a coexistence circuit.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai (US 11,324,048 B2) in view of Vavelidis (US 2007/0207759 A1) and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2013/0023214 A1, hereinafter “Wang”).
As to Claim 23:
Lai teaches:
The coexistence engine is configured to set
Lai describes a “coexistence management circuit” that is “configured to adjust a transmission power” (Lai, col. 2, lines 1-10).
Lai does not explicitly disclose:
Set the front-end LAN gain of the victim radio based on a receive signal strength of the receive message
However, Vavelidis does teach:
Set the front-end LAN gain of the victim radio based on a receive signal strength of the receive message
Vavelidis describes a radio device that may “adjust the gain of a variable gain LNA in the presence of RF interference to achieve NF and/or linearity performance” based on “received signal strength indicator (RSSI)” (Vavelidis, 0061).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Vavelidis’ practice of modifying LNA gain to avoid signal saturation into Lai’s method for configuring two radios to coexist. Signal saturation makes incoming messages unintelligible, so it makes sense to adjust LNA gain to allow for receiving an ungarbled signal.
The combination of Lai and Vavelidis also does not explicitly disclose:
A collision probability is higher than its predetermined level but the interference magnitude is lower than its predetermined level
However, Wang does describe a method for deconflicting transmissions between different sensor devices transmitting information.
Specifically, Wang teaches:
A collision probability is higher than its predetermined level but the interference magnitude is lower than its predetermined level
Wang teaches that “in the event of RFI interference or collision on the currently allocated channel, the MBAN system 10 can refer to the ordered list 50 to identify a suitable ‘clean’ (or ‘acceptable’, in the case of MBAN QoS class 46 being non-life-critical) channel” (Wang, 0037).
Here “collision on the currently allocated channel” maps to “a collision probability is higher than its predetermined level” because if collision has occurred, its probability is 100%, and “in the event of RFI interference or collision on the currently allocated channel” maps to “a collision probability is higher than its predetermined level but the interference magnitude is lower than its predetermined level” because logically the phrase “RFI interference or collision” encompasses a scenario where collision has occurred (i.e. probability of collision is 100%) but interference is sufficiently low.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Wang’s method of using both interference and collisions to determine if deconfliction is necessary, as well as Wang’s practice of performing deconfliction if one of these criteria is met, into Lai’s method for making a transmitter and receiver coexist on the same device. Interference and collisions are two potential issues that can arise when a transmitter and receiver operate concurrently, so it makes sense to perform deconfliction when even just one of the two occurs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bhattacharya et al. (US 2019/0289611 A1, hereinafter “Bhattacharya”) describes adjusting LNA gain to minimize SNR.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Peter Welte whose telephone number is (703)756-5965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, EST.
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, Chirag G Shah can be reached at (571) 272-3144. 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.
BENJAMIN PETER WELTE
Examiner
Art Unit 2477
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights