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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mody et al (US 2023/0328545 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mody discloses a method comprising:
determining, using a processing device comprising processing elements (Fig. 1, device 100 includes CLS engine 104 and Walden engine 112), a plurality of wireless parameters representing wireless data features on a wireless communications channel (Fig. 7, block 706, feature set is determined);
determining, using the processing device, a plurality of interference parameters and a predicted pattern of interference events based, at least in part, on the plurality of wireless parameters, the plurality of interference parameters identifying interference events on the wireless communications channel (Fig.7, block 708, interference signals are classified); and
generating one or more data transmission pattern modifications based, at least in part, on the plurality of interference parameters and the predicted pattern of interference events (Fig. 7, block 710, interference mitigation scheme is determined based on classified interference signals), the one or more data transmission pattern modifications including an update to a schedule of wireless communications medium usage for upcoming transmission activity (79th and 82nd paragraphs, determine an interference mitigation scheme for restoring underlying and nullifying interference effect. When a barrage interference is encountered, it is best to move away to a different frequency band).
Regarding claim 2, Mody discloses that wherein the plurality of wireless parameters comprises data values identifying a plurality of wireless devices (Fig. 1 and 121st paragraph, the database must include identifiers of devices having associated derived parameters, illustrated in Fig. 7), and further identifying activity on the wireless communications channel (Fig. 7, block 702 and 704, features of the signals and characteristics are determined).
Regarding claim 3, Mody discloses that wherein the plurality of interference parameters is determined using a neural network (Fig. 6, a neural network is used to classify interference).
Regarding claim 4, Mody discloses that wherein the neural network is configured based, at least in part, on data received from the plurality of wireless devices (Fig. 6, data derived from devices 601 are fed into the neural network 610).
Regarding claim 5, Mody discloses that wherein the neural network is configured to classify the plurality of interference parameters to identify the interference events (Fig. 6), and is further configured to generate a predicted pattern of interference events (Figs. 8S and 8T and 116th paragraph, interference patterns).
Regarding claim 6, Mody discloses that wherein the plurality of interference parameters is determined using an autoencoder (97th paragraph, neural network can be an autoencoder to determine interference parameters).
Regarding claim 7, Mody discloses that wherein the autoencoder is configured based, at least in part, on observed activity on the wireless communications channel (60th paragraph, features of the received RF signals which may then be stored as templates for future correlation with any new signal that is observed).
Regarding claim 8, Mody discloses that wherein the autoencoder is configured to classify the plurality of interference parameters to identify the interference events (Fig. 6 and 97th paragraph), and is further configured to generate a predicted pattern of interference events (Figs. 8S and 8T and 116th paragraph, interference patterns).
Regarding claims 10 and 16, Mody discloses a system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a transceiver configured to be compatible with a wireless communications protocol (Fig. 1, RF head 106 operating in a wireless networking system); and
processing elements coupled to the transceiver (Fig. 1, CLS engine and Walden engine), the processing elements being configured to:
determine a plurality of wireless parameters representing wireless data features on a wireless communications channel (Fig. 7, block 706, feature set is determined);
determine a plurality of interference parameters based and a predicted pattern of interference events based, at least in part, on the plurality of wireless parameters, the plurality of interference parameters identifying interference events on the wireless communications channel (Fig.7, block 708, interference signals are classified); and
generate one or more data transmission pattern modifications based, at least in part, on the plurality of interference parameters and the predicted pattern of interference events (Fig. 7, block 710, interference mitigation scheme is determined based on classified interference signals), the one or more data transmission pattern modifications including an update to a schedule of wireless communications medium usage for upcoming transmission activity (79th and 82nd paragraphs, determine an interference mitigation scheme for restoring underlying and nullifying interference effect. When a barrage interference is encountered, it is best to move away to a different frequency band).
Regarding claim 11, Mody discloses that wherein the plurality of wireless parameters comprises data values identifying a plurality of wireless devices (Fig. 1 and 121st paragraph, the database must include identifiers of devices having associated derived parameters, illustrated in Fig. 7), and further identifying activity on the wireless communications channel (Fig. 7, block 702 and 704, features of the signals and characteristics are determined).
Regarding claims 12 and 17, Mody discloses that wherein the plurality of interference parameters is determined using a neural network (Fig. 6, a neural network is used to classify interference), and wherein the neural network is configured based, at least in part, on data received from the plurality of wireless devices (Fig. 6, data derived from devices 601 are fed into the neural network 610).
Regarding claims 13 and 18, Mody discloses that wherein the neural network is configured to classify the plurality of interference parameters to identify the interference events (Fig. 6), and is further configured to generate a predicted pattern of interference events (Figs. 8S and 8T and 116th paragraph, interference patterns).
Regarding claims 14 and 19, Mody discloses that wherein the plurality of interference parameters is determined using an autoencoder (97th paragraph, neural network can be an autoencoder to determine interference parameters), and wherein the autoencoder is configured based, at least in part, on observed activity on the wireless communications channel (60th paragraph, features of the received RF signals which may then be stored as templates for future correlation with any new signal that is observed).
Regarding claims 15 and 20, Mody discloses that wherein the autoencoder is configured to classify the plurality of interference parameters to identify the interference events (Fig. 6 and 97th paragraph), and is further configured to generate a predicted pattern of interference events (Figs. 8S and 8T and 116th paragraph, interference patterns).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANH VU H LY whose telephone number is (571)272-3175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Nick Jensen can be reached at 571-270-5443. 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.
ANH VU H. LY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2472
/ANH VU H LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights