DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to applicant’s response filed under 37 C.F.R. §1.111 in response to a non-final office action. Claims 1, 2, 11, 12 have been amended; Claims 21-24 have been added. Claims 1-24 are subject to examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kloiber et. al. (Kloiber hereafter) (US 20210045010 A1) in view of Shattil (Shattil hereafter) (US 11184037 B1) and in further view of Lindoff et al. (Lindoff hereafter) (US 20150223111 A1) and Patil et al. (Patil hereafter) (US 20200154443 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Kloiber teaches, A device comprising:
hardware configured (radio base station 201 ) to reduce potential interference (usable without interference ) by adjusting a transmission protocol (selecting changed or additional carrier frequencies) in view of an expected impact to an intended receiver (to compensate for failures of communication protocols) of an ongoing transmission (interchange data frames 10, 20 with one another, where data frames are transmitted) (Kloiber; [0043] the radio base station 201 and the radio subscriber stations 202, 203 are each configured to take ascertained signal quality values or transmission errors as a basis for selecting changed or additional carrier frequencies to transmit data frames that are to be sent redundantly or for enabling carrier frequencies that are used. Potential sources of interference or carrier frequencies that are usable without
interference are advantageously ascertained via cognitive radio … [0044] the at least one radio base station 201 and the at least one radio subscriber station 202, 203 interchange data frames 10, 20 with one another, where data frames are transmitted at least utilizing a selected carrier frequency. [0005] In order to be able to compensate for failures of communication connections or devices, communication protocols, such as Media Redundancy Protocol), ([0040]).
Kloiber fails to explicitly teach, the transmission protocol to be adjusted in view of a threshold value that is determined based on an acceptable receiver interference level.
However, in the same field of endeavor Shattil teaches, the transmission protocol to be adjusted (adjusted to accommodate the adoption of new transmission protocols) in view of a threshold value (predetermined threshold SNR) that is determined based on an acceptable receiver interference level (while avoiding harmful interference) (Shattil; [Col 31-32, lines 64- col 32 lines 4-12] transmission channel may be adapted with respect to the corresponding SNR. voice communications may be allocated to channels having low SNRs, transmission channels that fail to achieve a predetermined threshold SNR, [Col 35 lines 47-58] Software-based radios can provide adaptability to different communication standards, …the SDR platform can be configured to enable coexistence of different standard systems within the same spectrum. For example, the power emission, frequency band, or other configuration parameters of a legacy radio access network can be adjusted to accommodate the adoption of new transmission protocols while avoiding harmful interference with the legacy protocol.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Kloiber to include the above recited limitations as taught by Shattil in order to
provide instructions to remote transceivers to adjust or control processing (Shattil; [Col 33, lines 6-7]).
Kloiber-Shattil fails to explicitly teach, wherein the device is to adjust one or more of transmission time, transmit power, or frequency such that a predicted received-interference power at the intended receiver does not exceed the maximum acceptable interference power level
However, in the same field of endeavor Lindoff teaches, wherein the device is to adjust one or more of transmission time, transmit power, or frequency (adjusting transmit power and/or time/frequency) such that a predicted received-interference power at the intended receiver does not exceed the maximum acceptable interference power level (when it is determined that there is an interference risk. [0036] a time/frequency resource allocation that uses a subset of the time/frequency resources that would be used according to the first transmission setting) (Lindoff; [0016] a wireless device may reduce possible out-of-band interference arising from its D2D transmissions by adjusting transmit power and/or time/frequency resource allocations when it is determined that there is an interference risk. Such mitigations provide improved performance for the D2D transmissions and for the communications in the critical frequency band. [0035-0036] the second transmission setting comprises at least one of: a second transmission power level that is lower than a first transmission power level comprised by the first transmission setting, and second time/frequency resources that are a subset of first time/frequency resources comprised by the first transmission setting. That is, the second transmission setting may be a lower transmit power setting than would be used according to the first transmission setting and/or may be a time/frequency resource allocation that uses a subset of the time/frequency resources that would be used according to the first transmission setting., [0044], [0053] the method 600 includes selecting (Block 604) a first transmission setting for the D2D transmission, and, in the second case, includes selecting (Block 606) a second transmission setting for the D2D transmission. As compared to the first transmission setting, the second transmission setting is configured to reduce out-of-band interference arising from the D2D transmission. The wireless device 38 transmits (Block 608) using the selected transmission setting.) [0035]) (Fig. 4, Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Kloiber-Shattil to include the above recited limitations as taught by Lindoff in order to provide improved performance for the transmissions and for the communications in the critical frequency band. (Lindoff; [0016]).
Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff fails to explicitly teach, wherein the hardware is configured to intercept a frame over a communication medium, the intended receiver being associated with the frame, and to determine, based on the intercepted frame, a path loss between the device and the intended receiver,
calculated based on the path loss and a current transmit power of the device, does not exceed the maximum acceptable receiver interference power level.
However, in the same field of endeavor Patil teaches, wherein the hardware is configured to intercept a frame over a communication medium (instruct each of a selected number of the second STAs to monitor one or more indicated channels, sub-channels, communication links, frequency bands, or RU(s) for data transmissions associated with one or more identified first STAs), the intended receiver being associated with the frame, and to determine, based on the intercepted frame ([0089] measure or determine a second RSSI value for Frame 3 transmitted from each of the one or more first stations STA1.), a path loss between the device and the intended receiver ([0093] where TxPower.sub.o represents the transmission power of Frame 3 from the corresponding first station STA1, and PL.sub.o.fwdarw.i represents the pathloss from the corresponding first station STA1 to the corresponding second station STA2) (Patil; [0081] the AP may instruct each of a selected number of the first STAs to monitor one or more indicated channels, sub-channels, communication links, frequency bands, or RU(s) for data transmissions associated with one or more identified second STAs, and may instruct each of a selected number of the second STAs to monitor one or more indicated channels, sub-channels, communication links, frequency bands, or RU(s) for data transmissions associated with one or more identified first STAs. [0089] ... each of the one or more second stations STA2 may measure or determine a second RSSI value for Frame 3 transmitted from each of the one or more first stations STA1. [0093] ... where TxPower.sub.o represents the transmission power of Frame 3 from the corresponding first station STA1, and PL.sub.o.fwdarw.i represents the pathloss from the corresponding first station STA1 to the corresponding second station STA2.)
calculated based on the path loss and a current transmit power of the device (The SINR may be calculated as SINR=R1−R2, where R1 is indicative of the quality of signals received from the AP at the corresponding second station STA2, and R2 is indicative of the quality of signals received from the first station STA1 at the corresponding second station STA2.), does not exceed the maximum acceptable receiver interference power level ([0115] the NFRP 551 may trigger each of the first stations STA1 to determine whether they satisfy one or more requirements (such as a measured RSSI value meeting or exceeding the upper threshold RSSI).) (Patil; [0089] the second RSSI values may be indicative of the signal strength of a corresponding first station STA1 at respective ones of the second stations STA2 [0093] The SINR may be calculated as SINR=R1−R2, where R1 is indicative of the quality of signals received from the AP at the corresponding second station STA2, and R2 is indicative of the quality of signals received from the first station STA1 at the corresponding second station STA2. In some implementations, R1 may be expressed as R1=TxPower.sub. AP−PL.sub.i, where TxPower.sub.AP represents the transmission power
of Frame 2 from the AP, and PL.sub.i represents the pathloss from the AP to the corresponding second station STA2. R2 may be expressed as R2=TxPower.sub.o−PL.sub.o.fwdarw., where TxPower.sub.o represents the transmission power of Frame 3 from the corresponding first station STA1, and PL.sub.o.fwdarw.i represents the pathloss from the corresponding first station STA1 to the corresponding second station STA2 [0115] the NFRP 551 may trigger each of the first stations STA1 to determine whether they satisfy one or more requirements (such as a measured RSSI value meeting or exceeding the upper threshold RSSI)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff to include the above recited limitations as taught by Patil in order to increase medium utilization and data throughput (Patil; [0080]).
Regarding claim 11 Kloiber teaches, A method of wireless communication, the method comprising: reducing potential interference (usable without interference ) by adjusting a transmission protocol (selecting changed or additional carrier frequencies) in view of an expected impact to an intended receiver (to compensate for failures of communication protocols) of an ongoing transmission (interchange data frames 10, 20 with one another, where data frames are transmitted) (Kloiber; [0043] the radio base station 201 and the radio subscriber stations 202, 203 are each configured to take ascertained signal quality values or transmission errors as a basis for selecting changed or additional carrier frequencies to transmit data frames that are to be sent redundantly or for enabling carrier frequencies that are used. Potential sources of interference or carrier frequencies that are usable without interference are advantageously ascertained via cognitive radio … [0044] the at least one radio base station 201 and the at least one radio subscriber station 202, 203 interchange data frames 10, 20 with one another, where data frames are transmitted at least utilizing a selected carrier frequency. [0005] In order to be able to compensate for failures of communication connections or devices, communication protocols, such as Media Redundancy Protocol), ([0040]).
Kloiber fails to explicitly teach, the transmission protocol to be adjusted in view of a threshold value that is determined based on an acceptable receiver interference level
However, in the same field of endeavor Shattil teaches, the transmission protocol to be adjusted (adjusted to accommodate the adoption of new transmission protocols) in view of a threshold value (predetermined threshold SNR) that is determined based on an acceptable receiver interference level (while avoiding harmful interference) (Shattil; [Col 31-32, lines 64- col 32 lines 4-12] transmission channel may be adapted with respect to the corresponding SNR. voice communications may be allocated to channels having low SNRs, transmission channels that fail to achieve a predetermined threshold SNR, [Col 35 lines 47-58] Software-based radios can provide adaptability to different communication standards, …the SDR platform can be configured to enable coexistence of different standard systems within the same spectrum. For example, the power emission, frequency band, or other configuration parameters of a legacy radio access network can be adjusted to accommodate the adoption of new transmission protocols while avoiding harmful interference with the legacy protocol).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Kloiber to include the above recited limitations as taught by Shattil in order to
provide instructions to remote transceivers to adjust or control processing (Shattil; [Col 33, lines 6-7]).
Kloiber-Shattil fails to explicitly teach, wherein the transmission protocol is adjusted such that a predicted received interference power at the intended receiver does not exceed the maximum acceptable interference power level.
However, in the same field of endeavor Lindoff teaches, wherein the device is to adjust one or more of transmission time, transmit power, or frequency (adjusting transmit power and/or time/frequency) such that a predicted received-interference power at the intended receiver does not exceed the maximum acceptable interference power level (when it is determined that there is an interference risk. [0036] a time/frequency resource allocation that uses a subset of the time/frequency resources that would be used according to the first transmission setting) (Lindoff; [0016] a wireless device may reduce possible out-of-band interference arising from its D2D transmissions by adjusting transmit power and/or time/frequency resource allocations when it is determined that there is an interference risk. Such mitigations provide improved performance for the D2D transmissions and for the communications in the critical frequency band. [0035-0036] the second transmission setting comprises at least one of: a second transmission power level that is lower than a first transmission power level comprised by the first transmission setting, and second time/frequency resources that are a subset of first time/frequency resources comprised by the first transmission setting. That is, the second transmission setting may be a lower transmit power setting than would be used according to the first transmission setting and/or may be a time/frequency resource allocation that uses a subset of the time/frequency resources that would be used according to the first transmission setting., [0044], [0053]… the method 600 includes selecting (Block 604) a first transmission setting for the D2D transmission, and, in the second case, includes selecting (Block 606) a second transmission setting for the D2D transmission. As compared to the first transmission setting, the second transmission setting is configured to reduce out-of-band interference arising from the D2D transmission. The wireless device 38 transmits (Block 608) using the selected transmission setting.) [0035]) (Fig. 4, Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Kloiber-Shattil to include the above recited limitations as taught by Lindoff in order to provide improved performance for the transmissions and for the communications in the critical frequency band. (Lindoff; [0016]).
Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff fails to explicitly teach, intercepting by the device a frame over a communication medium, the intended receiver being associated with the frame, and to determine, based on the intercepted frame, a path loss between the device and the intended receiver,
calculated based on the path loss and a current transmit power of the device, does not exceed the maximum acceptable receiver interference power level.
However, in the same field of endeavor Patil teaches, intercepting by the device a frame over a communication medium (instruct each of a selected number of the second STAs to monitor one or more indicated channels, sub-channels, communication links, frequency bands, or RU(s) for data transmissions associated with one or more identified first STAs), the intended receiver being associated with the frame, and to determine, based on the intercepted frame ([0089] measure or determine a second RSSI value for Frame 3 transmitted from each of the one or more first stations STA1.), a path loss between the device and the intended receiver ([0093] where TxPower.sub.o represents the transmission power of Frame 3 from the corresponding first station STA1, and PL.sub.o.fwdarw.i represents the pathloss from the corresponding first station STA1 to the corresponding second station STA2) (Patil; [0081] the AP may instruct each of a selected number of the first STAs to monitor one or more indicated channels, sub-channels, communication links, frequency bands, or RU(s) for data transmissions associated with one or more identified second STAs, and may instruct each of a selected number of the second STAs to monitor one or more indicated channels, sub-channels, communication links, frequency bands, or RU(s) for data transmissions associated with one or more identified first STAs. [0089] ... each of the one or more second stations STA2 may measure or determine a second RSSI value for Frame 3 transmitted from each of the one or more first stations STA1. [0093] ... where TxPower.sub.o represents the transmission power of Frame 3 from the corresponding first station STA1, and PL.sub.o.fwdarw.i represents the pathloss from the corresponding first station STA1 to the corresponding second station STA2.)
calculated based on the path loss and a current transmit power of the device (The SINR may be calculated as SINR=R1−R2, where R1 is indicative of the quality of signals received from the AP at the corresponding second station STA2, and R2 is indicative of the quality of signals received from the first station STA1 at the corresponding second station STA2.), does not exceed the maximum acceptable receiver interference power level ([0115] the NFRP 551 may trigger each of the first stations STA1 to determine whether they satisfy one or more requirements (such as a measured RSSI value meeting or exceeding the upper threshold RSSI).) (Patil; [0089] the second RSSI values may be indicative of the signal strength of a corresponding first station STA1 at respective ones of the second stations STA2 [0093] The SINR may be calculated as SINR=R1−R2, where R1 is indicative of the quality of signals received from the AP at the corresponding second station STA2, and R2 is indicative of the quality of signals received from the first station STA1 at the corresponding second station STA2. In some implementations, R1 may be expressed as R1=TxPower.sub. AP−PL.sub.i, where TxPower.sub.AP represents the transmission power
of Frame 2 from the AP, and PL.sub.i represents the pathloss from the AP to the corresponding second station STA2. R2 may be expressed as R2=TxPower.sub.o−PL.sub.o.fwdarw., where TxPower.sub.o represents the transmission power of Frame 3 from the corresponding first station STA1, and PL.sub.o.fwdarw.i represents the pathloss from the corresponding first station STA1 to the corresponding second station STA2 [0115] the NFRP 551 may trigger each of the first stations STA1 to determine whether they satisfy one or more requirements (such as a measured RSSI value meeting or exceeding the upper threshold RSSI)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff to include the above recited limitations as taught by Patil in order to increase medium utilization and data throughput (Patil; [0080]).
Claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Urabe et. al. (Urabe hereafter) (US 20090296591 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 12 Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil teaches, The claims 1 and 11,
Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil Fails to explicitly teach, wherein to reduce potential interference, the hardware is configured to intercept the frame over the communication medium wherein the potential interference is determined in view of the frame being sent to the intended receiver
However, in the same field of endeavor Urabe teaches wherein to reduce potential interference, the hardware is configured to intercept the frame over the communication medium wherein the potential interference is determined in view of the frame being sent to the intended receiver (Urabe; [0164] The wireless station 213 transmits the data packet d234 to the wireless station 214... [0165] The data packet d234 transmitted by the wireless station 213 might be received by the wireless station 212. If the wireless station 212 intercepts the data packet d234, the wireless station 212 recognizes the wireless station 213 as an interference station).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil to include the above recited limitations as taught by Urabe in order to estimate a potential interference (Urabe; [0165]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13 Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil teaches, The claims 1 and 11,
Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil Fails to explicitly teach, wherein to reduce potential interference, the hardware is configured to monitor for a response frame and, responsive to not identifying the response frame within a threshold amount of time, send a transmit frame to a particular device
However, in the same field of endeavor Urabe teaches wherein to reduce potential interference, the hardware is configured to monitor for a response frame and, responsive to not identifying the response frame within a threshold amount of time, send a transmit frame to a particular device (Urabe; [0166] The wireless station 211 performs the carrier sense again after the transmission of the data packet d234 and the ACK packet a243 has been completed. After confirming that no carrier has been detected, the wireless station 211 transmits the data packet d212 to the wireless station 212.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil to include the above recited limitations as taught by Urabe in order to estimate a potential interference (Urabe; [0165]).
Claims 4, 8-10, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Urban et. al. (Urban hereafter) (US 20170251488 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 14 Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil teaches, The claims 1 and 11,
Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil fails to explicitly teach, wherein the adjustment to the transmission protocol is for a particular transmission for one or more devices other than the intended receiver
However, in the same field of endeavor Urban teaches, wherein the adjustment to the transmission protocol is for a particular transmission for one or more devices other than the intended receiver (Urban; [0063] ... The timing information can be specific to a corresponding device, wireless protocol, and/or the like as specified by the scheduling protocol).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil to include the above recited limitations as taught by Urban in order to determine a time window based on the scheduling protocol (Urban; [0165]).
Regarding claims 8 and 18 Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil teaches, The claims 1 and 11,
Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil fails to explicitly teach, wherein the adjusting the transmission protocol includes delaying transmission of a frame
However, in the same field of endeavor Urban teaches, wherein the adjusting the transmission protocol includes delaying transmission of a frame (Urban; [0038] ... The one or more devices can use the timing information to override or replace timing information of a communication protocol. The device can delay transmissions utilizing one or more communication protocols based on the timing information provided by the scheduling protocol).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil to include the above recited limitations as taught by Urban in order to determine a time window based on the scheduling protocol (Urban; [0165]).
Regarding claims 9 and 19 Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil teaches, The claims 1 and 11,
Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil fails to explicitly teach, wherein the adjusting the transmission protocol includes adjusting a power of transmission of a frame.
However, in the same field of endeavor Urban teaches, wherein the adjusting the transmission protocol includes adjusting a power of transmission of a frame (Urban; [0081-0082] ... For example, the first network device can enter a reduced functionality mode during the time window. Entering a reduced functionality mode can comprise ..., reducing signal strength and/or the like of a component (e.g., a transmitter, a receiver, a transceiver) used by the first network device... withholding, at the first network device, the one or more transmissions associated with the first wireless protocol during the time window can comprise powering off a transmitter associated with the first wireless protocol, disabling transmission from the transmitter associated with the first wireless protocol, preventing transmissions from the first transmitter,.. Restoring functionality can comprise turning on, powering up, enabling usage of, increasing signal strength).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil to include the above recited limitations as taught by Urban in order to determine a time window based on the scheduling protocol (Urban; [0165]).
Regarding claims 10 and 20 Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil teaches, The claims 1 and 11,
Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil fails to explicitly teach, wherein the adjusting the transmission protocol includes adjusting a frequency segment of a medium used for transmission of a frame.
However, in the same field of endeavor Urban teaches, wherein the adjusting the transmission protocol includes adjusting a frequency segment of a medium used for transmission of a frame (Urban; [0065-0067] ...the mobile device can receive a request (e.g., from a user) to send a WiFi transmission. The mobile device can access the scheduling protocol to determine an appropriate time to use the WiFi radio to send the WiFi transmission... The rule can specify a start time for sending WiFi transmissions. The rule can also specify periodicity or frequency for sending additional transmissions after the start time... [0067] The mobile device can access the scheduling protocol to determine whether a current time of the mobile device is within a time window associated with a first communication protocol (e.g., WiFi) or a time window associated with a second communication protocol (e.g., Bluetooth®)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil to include the above recited limitations as taught by Urban in order to determine a time window based on the scheduling protocol (Urban; [0165]).
Claims 5, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Madhavan et. al (Madhavan hereafter) (US 20190089515 A1) (IDS provided).
Regarding claims 5 and 15 Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil teaches, The claims 1 and 11,
Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil Fails to explicitly teach, wherein the expected impact to the intended receiver includes a calculated path loss between a transmit device and the intended receiver of the transmission.
However, in the same field of endeavor Madhavan teaches wherein the expected impact to the intended receiver includes a calculated path loss between a transmit device and the intended receiver of the transmission (Madhavan; [0049] Before start of full duplex communication, AP 11 transmits a frame to terminal 2, and causes terminal 2 to measure “P.sub.Loss(AP. fwdarw. STA2)”, and obtains a measurement result).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil to include the above recited limitations as taught by Madhavan in order to measure the power of the received frame (Madhavan; [0049]).
Claims 6, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil as applied to claims 5 and 15 above, and further in view of Madhavan et. al (Madhavan hereafter) (US 20190089515 A1) (IDS provided).
Regarding claims 6 Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil-Madhavan teaches, The claim 5,
Kloiber further teaches, wherein the transmit device is the device comprising the hardware configured to reduce the potential interference (Kloiber; [0020] ... the multiplexer units can each be configured to code data frames that are to be sent redundantly using different carrier frequencies in accordance with respectively different coding schemes. This allows further increased insensitivity toward interference.).
Regarding claim 16 Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil-Madhavan teaches, The claim 15,
Kloiber further teaches, wherein the transmit device is configured to perform the method of claim 15 (Kloiber; [0043] ... the radio base station 201 or the radio subscriber stations 202, 203 pre-emptively allocate carrier frequencies that are temporarily enabled for transmitting data frames identified as non-time-critical for transmitting data frames identified as time-critical. This allows particularly efficient use of available carrier frequencies, without adversely affecting time-critical data traffic.).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil-Madhavan as applied to claims 5 and 15 above, and further in view of Morioka et al. (Morioka hereafter) (US 20200280877 A1) (IDS provided).
Regarding claims 7 and 17 Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil-Madhavan teaches, The claims 5 and 15,
Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil-Madhavan Fails to explicitly teach, wherein the transmission is sent by a secondary device that is not the transmit device and the transmit device and the intended receiver are not part of the same wireless network.
However, in the same field of endeavor Morioka teaches wherein the transmission is sent by a secondary device that is not the transmit device and the transmit device and the intended receiver are not part of the same wireless network (Morioka; [0074] STA B is in a state of a hidden terminal for AP A. Even in the dense environment where packets partially collide (see FIG. 11), STA B can acquire the NAV information from the data section of the packet arriving from STA A and set the NAV of the appropriate period by using the packet format).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil-Madhavan to include the above recited limitations as taught by Morioka in order to suppress collision (Morioka; [0074]).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Palanki et al (Palanki hereafter) ( (US 20100167743 A1).
Regarding claims 21 and 23 Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil teaches, The claims1and 11,
Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil fails to explicitly teach, wherein the path loss is determined in real-time on a frame- by-frame basis
However, in the same field of endeavor Palanki teaches, wherein the path loss is determined in real-time on a frame- by-frame basis (Palanki; [0036] the relay UEs may be selected to serve any client UE within their coverage. In any case, each relay UE may measure the pilot from the client UE and may determine the pathloss from the client UE to that relay UE based on the pilot measurement (step 3). The pathloss may be determined based on the known transmit power level and the measured received power level of the pilot from the client UE.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil to include the above recited limitations as taught by Palanki in order to communicate and pilot measurement (e.g., pathloss) for the client UE. (Palanki; [0037]).
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Li et al (Li hereafter) (US 20100190459 A1).
Regarding claims 22 and 24 Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil teaches, The claims1and 11,
Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil fails to explicitly teach, wherein the path loss is determined based on one or more of: a periodic sampling, a recurring sampling, a selected sampling, or a substantially continuous sampling, wherein each sampling is for one or more frames.
However, in the same field of endeavor Li teaches, wherein the path loss is determined based on one or more of: a selected sampling, wherein each sampling is for one or more frames (Li; [0049] terminal A may use different receiver gain settings in different paging frames to receive paging signals from peer terminals. The receiver gain settings for different paging frames may be selected based on a pattern that may be known by the peer terminals. The pattern may include multiple receiver gain settings, and terminal A may cycle through the pattern and use a different receiver gain setting for each paging frame. Terminal A may use the high receiver gain setting in paging frame t, then the mid receiver gain setting in paging frame t+1, then the low receiver gain setting in paging frame t+2, then back to the high receiver gain setting in paging frame t+3, etc. A peer terminal may select an appropriate paging frame to send a paging signal to terminal A based on the known pattern and the pathloss from that terminal to terminal A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Kloiber-Shattil-Lindoff-Patil to include the above recited limitations as taught by Li in order to use different receiver gain settings in different paging frames to receive paging signals from peer terminals. (Li; [0049]).
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 WILFRED THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0353. The examiner can normally be reached Mon -Thurs 9:00 am-4:00 pm.
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, Noel R Beharry can be reached at 571-270-5630. 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.
/W. T/ Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights