Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretations on page 6 line 18 to page 7 line 13, filed 3/18/2026, with respect to claims 32-38 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretations of claims 32-38 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Referring to the response to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims (arguments: page 7 line 14 to page 15 line 9): The arguments argue on page 7 line 14 to page 11 line 20 and page 13 lines 9-28 that Bhushan et al do not teach the limitations of independent claims 24 and 32 of “analyzing the received signals to identify spurious emissions and interferences”. However, Bhushan et al disclose in Figures 1-9 the claimed “analyzing the received signals to identify … interferences”. Sections 0035-0038, 0050, 0054-0058, 0062, 0071, and 0076: AP110 uses channel interference software module 334 to estimate co-channel interference within and between wireless coverage areas. Since co-channel interference occurs between two APs that are transmitting and receiving on the same channel (Section 0058), AP110 can estimate co-channel interference based on the analyzing signals received on the same channel, such as by analyzing the SNR of received signals to determine interference (claimed “analyzing the received signals to identify … interferences”). Figure 7 and Sections 0108-0117: AP110 receives frames from a plurality of stations of a respective AP111-AP116, wherein the frames include STA-related values such as SNR values. AP110 then determines an average SNR value from the plurality of stations and compares the average SNR to a threshold SNR. A high SNR indicates low interference and a low SNR indicates high interference. If the average SNR exceeds the threshold SNR, AP110 reduces the transmission power of the respective AP111-AP116 and if the average SNR is below the threshold SNR, AP110 increases the transmission power of the respective AP111-AP116. The arguments argue that Bhushan et al teach managing interference but “has no concept of internal frequency sources (such as local oscillators, ADC sampling clocks, or crystal oscillators) within a multi-radio device, no concept of harmonic or intermodulation products arising from frequency interactions between co-located radios, and no mechanism for identifying the source or nature of any particular interference” (arguments: page 8 line 28 to page 9 line 4). However, the claim does not claim that the system analyzes received signals for internal frequency sources, harmonic or intermodulation products, nor the source of the interference. The claim just claims that the system analyzes received signals for interference.
The arguments also argue that Liu et al do not teach the limitations of independent claims 24 and 32 of “analyzing the received signals to identify spurious emissions and interferences”. However, Liu et al disclose in Figures 1-5 and Sections 0025-0028 and 0033-0039 a system that allocates frequency channels according to Figures 3-4 in a network in order to mitigate interference between APs, wherein interference comes from neighboring AP cells’ co-channel interference, AP’s spurious emission, neighboring APs’ adjacent channel interference, and stations’ co-channel interference, adjacent channel interference, and spurious emission. Each AP performs scanning for all available channels to determine the channel that causes the least spurious emissions and interferences. For each channel being scanned, all the information related to channel selection, including signal strength level, interference, and spurious emission, are recorded. Each AP performs scanning of available channels by recording the interference and spurious emissions from the received packets on each available channel, wherein the received packets can be beacons from neighboring APs and any data/management packets from stations (claimed “analyzing the received signals to identify spurious emissions and interferences”). Liu et al specifically disclose in Section 0033 that “For each channel being scanned, all the information related to channel selection (i.e. signal strength level, interference, spurious emission, and uniformed spectrum described above) may be recorded.” and in Section 0038 that “The information recorded related to the channel selection may be selected from the group consisting of: signal strength level, interference, spurious emission, and uniformed spectrum.”. So, Liu et al specifically disclose that the system can record information related to spurious emission, as claimed. The arguments also argue on page 8 lines 1-13 that a spurious emission as a “specific harmonic or intermodulation product arising at a predictable frequency that is a linear combination of specific oscillator and clock frequencies present in a multi-radio system. However, the claim does not specifically define “spurious emissions” as such, so Liu et al discloses the claimed “spurious emission”.
The arguments argue that Bhushan et al and Liu et al cannot be combined on page 10 line 20 to page 11 line 20. However, Bhushan et al disclose a system that analyzes received signals for interference and then mitigates the interference by assigning transmission powers and channels. Similarly, Liu et al disclose a system that analyzes received signals for interference and spurious emissions and then mitigates the interference and spurious emissions by assigning channels. So, Bhushan et al and Liu et al can be combined to analyze received signals for interference and spurious emissions to minimize interference and spurious emissions. Noble et al (of independent claim 32) was used to teach that the system can create an interference map to map the interference and spurious emissions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 24 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20200396695 to Bhushan et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20050265288 to Liu et al.
Referring to claim 24, Bhushan et al disclose in Figures 1-9 a method for coexistence (Section 0064; interference mitigation so that AP110-AP116 can coexist) and interference mitigation in multicom platforms (“multicom platforms” is in the preamble and not given patentable weight), comprising:
a) receiving signals from a plurality of communication devices (AP111-AP116). Sections 0047, 0057, 0065: AP110 includes a transceiver 310 for receiving signals from AP111-AP116.
b) analyzing the received signals to identify … interferences. Sections 0035-0038, 0050, 0054-0058, 0062, 0071, and 0076: AP110 uses channel interference software module 334 to estimate co-channel interference within and between wireless coverage areas. Since co-channel interference occurs between two APs that are transmitting and receiving on the same channel (Section 0058), AP110 can estimate co-channel interference based on the analyzing signals received on the same channel, such as by analyzing the SNR of received signals to determine interference. Figure 7 and Sections 0108-0117: AP110 receives frames from a plurality of stations of a respective AP111-AP116, wherein the frames include STA-related values such as SNR values. AP110 then determines an average SNR value from the plurality of stations and compares the average SNR to a threshold SNR. A high SNR indicates low interference and a low SNR indicates high interference. If the average SNR exceeds the threshold SNR, AP110 reduces the transmission power of the respective AP111-AP116 and if the average SNR is below the threshold SNR, AP110 increases the transmission power of the respective AP111-AP116.
c) generating a mitigation plan (power adjustment plan or channel selection plan) based on the analysis. Sections 0050 and 0054-0056: AP110 collects the determined network parameters from AP111-AP116 and uses the determined network parameters to generate a power adjustment plan for the network. AP110 determines the optimum transmission power adjustment for each of AP111-AP116 and deploys the transmission power adjustment plan across the network to each of AP111-AP116. The deployed transmission power adjustment plan is used to mitigate co-channel interference in overlapping wireless coverage areas for AP110-AP116. Figure 7 and Sections 0108-0117: AP110 receives frames from a plurality of stations of a respective AP111-AP116, wherein the frames include STA-related values such as SNR values. AP110 then determines an average SNR value from the plurality of stations and compares the average SNR to a threshold SNR. A high SNR indicates low interference and a low SNR indicates high interference. If the average SNR exceeds the threshold SNR, AP110 reduces the transmission power of the respective AP111-AP116 and if the average SNR is below the threshold SNR, AP110 increases the transmission power of the respective AP111-AP116. AP110 can also generate a channel selection plan for the network, which assigns operating channels to AP111-AP116 to mitigate interference.
d) transmitting (deploying) the mitigation plan to the communication devices for mitigating the interferences. Sections 0050 and 0054-0056: AP110 collects the determined network parameters from AP111-AP116 and uses the determined network parameters to generate a power adjustment plan for the network. AP110 determines the optimum transmission power adjustment for each of AP111-AP116 and deploys the transmission power adjustment plan across the network to each of AP111-AP116. The deployed transmission power adjustment plan is used to mitigate co-channel interference in overlapping wireless coverage areas for the AP 110 and the AP111-AP116. AP110 can also generate a channel selection plan for the network, which assigns operating channels to AP111-AP116 to mitigate interference. Refer to Sections 0033-0136.
Bhushan et al do not disclose a method for coexistence and spurious mitigation in multicom platforms, comprising: … ; b) analyzing the received signals to identify spurious emissions and interferences; … ; and d) transmitting the mitigation plan to the communication devices for mitigating the spurious products.
Liu et al disclose in Figures 1-5 and Sections 0025-0028 and 0033-0039 a system that allocates frequency channels according to Figures 3-4 in a network in order to mitigate interference between APs, wherein interference comes from neighboring AP cells’ co-channel interference, AP’s spurious emission, neighboring APs’ adjacent channel interference, and stations’ co-channel interference, adjacent channel interference, and spurious emission (claimed “spurious mitigation” and “… mitigation plan to the communication devices for mitigating the spurious products”). Each AP performs scanning for all available channels to determine the channel that causes the least spurious emissions and interferences. For each channel being scanned, all the information related to channel selection, including signal strength level, interference, and spurious emission, are recorded. Each AP performs scanning of available channels by recording the interference and spurious emissions from the received packets on each available channel, wherein the received packets can be beacons from neighboring APs and any data/management packets from stations (claimed “analyzing the received signals to identify spurious emissions and interferences”). Refer to Sections 0011-0042. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a method for coexistence and spurious mitigation in multicom platforms, comprising: … ; b) analyzing the received signals to identify spurious emissions and interferences; … ; and d) transmitting the mitigation plan to the communication devices for mitigating the spurious products. One would have been motivated to do so so that a network can allocate channels to mitigate interference and spurious emissions, since interference is caused by spurious emissions, thereby improving communication quality.
Referring to claim 28, Bhushan et al disclose in Figures 1-9 further comprising assigning specific frequency bands or channels to the communication devices to minimize … interferences. AP110 can generate a channel selection plan for the network, which assigns operating channels to AP111-AP116 to mitigate interference. AP110 can assign frequency bands to each of AP111-AP116 (Sections 0035, 0047, 0050, 0058, 0062, and 0064) or assign frequency channels to each of AP111-AP116 (Sections 0035, 0050, 0058, and 0062). Refer to Sections 0033-0136.
Bhushan et al do not disclose further comprising assigning specific frequency bands or channels to the communication devices to minimize the spurious emissions and interferences.
Liu et al disclose in Figures 1-5 and Sections 0025-0028 and 0033-0039 a system that allocates frequency channels according to Figures 3-4 in a network in order to mitigate interference between APs, wherein interference comes from neighboring AP cells’ co-channel interference, AP’s spurious emission, neighboring APs’ adjacent channel interference, and stations’ co-channel interference, adjacent channel interference, and spurious emission. Each AP can be assigned a frequency band (Sections 0029-0041) or a frequency channel (Sections 0026 and 0030-0041) to mitigate spurious emissions and interferences.
Refer to Sections 0011-0042. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include further comprising assigning specific frequency bands or channels to the communication devices to minimize the spurious emissions and interferences. One would have been motivated to do so so that a network can allocate frequency bands or channels to mitigate interference and spurious emissions, since interference is caused by spurious emissions, thereby improving communication quality.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20200396695 to Bhushan et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20050265288 to Liu et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20190335346 to Abadie et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 7155218 to Fessler et al, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 20170295581 to Takagi et al.
Bhushan et al and Liu et al do not disclose further comprising determining the frequency … characteristics of the received signals to identify the spurious emissions …
Abadie et al disclose in Figures and Sections 0010, 0014, 0072 and 0085 a method of identifying spurious emissions of a device. The method receives a first signal from the device, then identifying spurious emissions in a predetermined frequency range of the first signal, and then determining a number of frequencies of the identified spurious emissions in the first signal. The method then receives a second signal from the device and measures spurious emissions in the second signal at the determined number of frequencies of the identified spurious emissions in the first signal. Refer to Sections 0064-0090. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include further comprising determining the frequency … characteristics of the received signals to identify the spurious emissions … One would have been motivated to do so to use the frequency of received signals to identify spurious emissions, thereby facilitating spurious emissions detection to improve communication quality.
Bhushan et al, Liu et al, and Abadie et al do not disclose further comprising determining the frequency, power, and timing characteristics of the received signals to identify the spurious emissions …
Fessler et al disclose in Figures 1-4 and Column 2 line 66 to Column 3 line 13 wherein the system serially adjusts the transmit power setting of UE and for each serially adjusted transmit power setting, determines the spurious emission output by the UE (claimed “determining the … power … characteristics of the received signals to identify the spurious emissions”). The system also considers the power of the signal transmitted by UE, at a plurality of times, in determining the spurious emission output by UE (claimed “determining the … power, and timing characteristics of the received signals to identify the spurious emissions”). Refer to Column 2 line 66 to Column 8 line 52. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include further comprising determining the frequency, power, and timing characteristics of the received signals to identify the spurious emissions … One would have been motivated to do so to use the power and timing of received signals to identify spurious emissions, thereby facilitating spurious emissions detection to improve communication quality.
Bhushan et al, Liu et al, Abadie et al, and Fessler et al do not disclose further comprising determining the frequency, power, and timing characteristics of the received signals to identify the spurious emissions and interferences.
Takagi et al disclose in Figures 1-28 and Sections 0040-0041 wherein an interference identifying device includes an acquiring circuitry to receive signals, a power-value calculating circuitry to determine the power of the signals, an average-power calculating circuitry to determine an average power value, a frequency count circuitry that counts, using the average power value, power values at frequencies and times exceeding the average power value (claimed “determining the frequency, power, and timing characteristics of the received signals to identify … interferences”), an identifying circuitry that identifies the interference signal from the frequency count, and the average power value, and an output circuitry that outputs the interference identification. Refer to Sections 0040-0119. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include further comprising determining the frequency, power, and timing characteristics of the received signals to identify the spurious emissions and interferences. One would have been motivated to do so so to use the frequency, power, and timing characteristics of received signals to identify interference, thereby facilitating interference detection to improve communication quality.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20200396695 to Bhushan et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20050265288 to Liu et al, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 20090191910 to Athalye et al.
Bhushan et al disclose in Figures 1-9 further comprising adjusting transmission power levels of the communication devices to reduce … interferences. Sections 0050 and 0054-0056: AP110 collects the determined network parameters from AP111-AP116 and uses the determined network parameters to generate a power adjustment plan for the network. AP110 determines the optimum transmission power adjustment for each of AP111-AP116 and deploys the transmission power adjustment plan across the network to each of AP111-AP116. The deployed transmission power adjustment plan is used to mitigate co-channel interference in overlapping wireless coverage areas for the AP 110 and the AP111-AP116. Figures 5-7 and Sections 0080-0117: AP110 receives frames from a plurality of stations of a respective AP111-AP116, wherein the frames include STA-related values such as SNR values. AP110 then determines an average SNR value from the plurality of stations and compares the average SNR to a threshold SNR. A high SNR indicates low interference and a low SNR indicates high interference. If the average SNR exceeds the threshold SNR, AP110 reduces the transmission power of the respective AP111-AP116 and if the average SNR is below the threshold SNR, AP110 increases the transmission power of the respective AP111-AP116. Refer to Sections 0033-0136.
Bhushan et al and Liu et al do not disclose further comprising adjusting transmission power levels of the communication devices to reduce the spurious emissions and interferences.
Athalye et al disclose in Figures 1-14 wherein to reduce interference, UE adjusts its transmit power levels to ensure that its spurious emissions are minimized. BS transmits instructions to UE so that UE can vary its transmit power levels in order to minimize the intensity of spurious emissions from UE that fall outside the permitted frequency allocation for UE. Refer to Sections 0007, 0045-0047, 0054-0059, 0064-0065, 0079, and 0081. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include further comprising adjusting transmission power levels of the communication devices to reduce the spurious emissions and interferences. One would have been motivated to do so so that a network can adjust transmission power levels to mitigate both interference and spurious emissions, since interference is caused by spurious emissions, thereby improving communication quality.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20200396695 to Bhushan et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20050265288 to Liu et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20110085795 to Ozaki et al, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 20120082077 to Zhang et al.
Bhushan et al and Liu et al do not disclose further comprising implementing time-division or frequency-division multiplexing techniques to avoid collisions … between the communication devices.
Ozaki et al disclose in Figures 1-12 and Sections 0007-0010 wherein a system a time division multiplexing access scheme is used to avoid signal collisions between a plurality of nodes. Refer to Sections 0039-0089. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include further comprising implementing time-division or frequency-division (not in reference; claim is in “or” form) multiplexing techniques to avoid collisions … between the communication devices. One would have been motivated to do so to use a time division multiplexing scheme to avoid signal collision between devices, thereby facilitating communication between nodes.
Bhushan et al, Liu et al, and Ozaki et al do not disclose further comprising implementing time-division or frequency-division multiplexing techniques to avoid collisions and interferences between the communication devices.
Zhang et al disclose in Figures 1-8 and Sections 0046-0050 wherein a time division multiplexing scheme is used to prevent and avoid interference of signals being transmitted and/or received between communication devices and eNode-B. Refer to Sections 0017-0063. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include further comprising implementing time-division or frequency-division (not in reference; claim is in “or” form) multiplexing techniques to avoid collisions and interferences between the communication devices. One would have been motivated to do so to use a time division multiplexing scheme to avoid signal interferences between devices, thereby facilitating communication between nodes.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20200396695 to Bhushan et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20050265288 to Liu et al, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 20180027506 to Pasulka et al.
Bhushan et al and Liu et al do not disclose further comprising dynamically updating the plan based on changes in the operating environment or performance of the communication devices.
Pasulka et al disclose in Figures 1-5 and Section 0029 wherein interference occurs between APs and UEs. A power manager assigns channels based on the detected interference. The system periodically scans for interference and the power manager updates the channel assignments based on changing interference levels (claimed “dynamically updating the plan based on changes in the operating environment …”, wherein the claimed “changes in the operating environment” is changes in network interference levels). If the system detects interference from another AP in the network, the power manager adjusts the transmission power of the AP to reduce interference (claimed “dynamically updating the plan based on changes in the … performance of the communication devices”, wherein the claimed “performance of the communication devices” is the interference experienced by AP). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include further comprising dynamically updating the plan based on changes in the operating environment or performance of the communication devices. One would have been motivated to do so to ensure that the channel assignments and transmission powers are updated in accordance with changing conditions of the network and communication devices.
Claims 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20200396695 to Bhushan et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20050265288 to Liu et al, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 20200260458 to Noble et al.
Referring to claim 32, Bhushan et al disclose in Figures 1-9 a method for coexistence (Section 0064; interference mitigation so that AP110-AP116 can coexist) and interference mitigation in multicom platforms (“multicom platforms” is in the preamble and not given patentable weight), comprising:
a) A plurality of communication devices (AP111-AP116). AP110 communicates with AP111-AP116.
b) A receiver (receiver of transceiver 310) configured to receive signals from the communication devices. Sections 0047, 0057, 0065: AP110 includes a transceiver 310 for receiving signals from AP111-AP116.
c) A circuitry (channel interference software module 334) configured to analyze the received signals to identify … interferences. Sections 0035-0038, 0050, 0054-0058, 0062, 0071, and 0076: AP110 uses channel interference software module 334 to estimate co-channel interference within and between wireless coverage areas. Since co-channel interference occurs between two APs that are transmitting and receiving on the same channel (Section 0058), AP110 can estimate co-channel interference based on the analyzing signals received on the same channel, such as by analyzing the SNR of received signals to determine interference. Figures 5-7 and Sections 0080-0117: AP110 receives frames from a plurality of stations of a respective AP111-AP116, wherein the frames include STA-related values such as SNR values. AP110 then determines an average SNR value from the plurality of stations and compares the average SNR to a threshold SNR. A high SNR indicates low interference and a low SNR indicates high interference. If the average SNR exceeds the threshold SNR, AP110 reduces the transmission power of the respective AP111-AP116 and if the average SNR is below the threshold SNR, AP110 increases the transmission power of the respective AP111-AP116.
d) A circuitry (transmission power adjustment software module 336 to generate power adjustment plan or channel selection software module 335 to generate channel selection plan) configured to generate a mitigation plan (power adjustment plan or channel selection plan) based on the analysis … Sections 0050 and 0054-0056: AP110 collects the determined network parameters from AP111-AP116 and uses the determined network parameters to generate a power adjustment plan for the network. AP110 determines the optimum transmission power adjustment for each of AP111-AP116 and deploys the transmission power adjustment plan across the network to each of AP111-AP116. The deployed transmission power adjustment plan is used to mitigate co-channel interference in overlapping wireless coverage areas for AP110-AP116. Figures 5-7 and Sections 0080-0117: AP110 receives frames from a plurality of stations of a respective AP111-AP116, wherein the frames include STA-related values such as SNR values. AP110 then determines an average SNR value from the plurality of stations and compares the average SNR to a threshold SNR. A high SNR indicates low interference and a low SNR indicates high interference. If the average SNR exceeds the threshold SNR, AP110 reduces the transmission power of the respective AP111-AP116 and if the average SNR is below the threshold SNR, AP110 increases the transmission power of the respective AP111-AP116. AP110 can also generate a channel selection plan for the network, which assigns operating channels to AP111-AP116 to mitigate interference.
e) A transmitter (receiver of transceiver 310) configured to transmit (deploy) the mitigation plan to the communication devices for mitigating the interferences. Sections 0050 and 0054-0056: AP110 collects the determined network parameters from AP111-AP116 and uses the determined network parameters to generate a power adjustment plan for the network. AP110 determines the optimum transmission power adjustment for each of AP111-AP116 and deploys the transmission power adjustment plan across the network to each of AP111-AP116. The deployed transmission power adjustment plan is used to mitigate co-channel interference in overlapping wireless coverage areas for the AP 110 and the AP111-AP116. AP110 can also generate a channel selection plan for the network, which assigns operating channels to AP111-AP116 to mitigate interference. Refer to Sections 0033-0136.
Bhushan et al do not disclose a system for coexistence and spurious mitigation in multicom platforms, comprising: … ; … ; c) A circuitry configured to analyze the received signals to identify spurious emissions and interferences; … ; and e) A transmitter configured to transmit the mitigation plan to the communication devices for mitigating the spurious products.
Liu et al disclose in Figures 1-5 and Sections 0025-0028 and 0033-0039 a system that allocates frequency channels according to Figures 3-4 in a network in order to mitigate interference between APs, wherein interference comes from neighboring AP cells’ co-channel interference, AP’s spurious emission, neighboring APs’ adjacent channel interference, and stations’ co-channel interference, adjacent channel interference, and spurious emission (claimed “spurious mitigation” and “… mitigation plan to the communication devices for mitigating the spurious products”). Each AP performs scanning for all available channels to determine the channel that causes the least spurious emissions and interferences. For each channel being scanned, all the information related to channel selection, including signal strength level, interference, and spurious emission, are recorded. Each AP performs scanning of available channels by recording the interference and spurious emissions from the received packets on each available channel, wherein the received packets can be beacons from neighboring APs and any data/management packets from stations (claimed “analyze the received signals to identify spurious emissions and interferences”). Refer to Sections 0011-0042. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a system for coexistence and spurious mitigation in multicom platforms, comprising: … ; … ; c) A circuitry configured to analyze the received signals to identify spurious emissions and interferences; … ; and e) A transmitter configured to transmit the mitigation plan to the communication devices for mitigating the spurious products. One would have been motivated to do so so that a network can allocate channels to mitigate interference and spurious emissions, since interference is caused by spurious emissions, thereby improving communication quality.
Bhushan et al and Liu et al do not disclose … d) A circuitry configured to generate a mitigation plan based on the analysis, wherein the mitigation plan including a spurious map …
Noble et al disclose in Figures 1-4 and Sections 0039-0041 wherein each device conducts a periodic scan to identify interference and builds an interference map. The interference map includes spurious emissions from other devices (claimed “the mitigation plan including a spurious map”). The device uses the interference map to avoid interference. Refer to Sections 0009-0042. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include … d) A circuitry configured to generate a mitigation plan based on the analysis, wherein the mitigation plan including a spurious map … One would have been motivated to do so to identify spurious emissions from other devices in a network using a map, thereby facilitating mitigation of the spurious emissions.
Referring to claim 34, Bhushan et al disclose in Figures 1-9 wherein the circuitry configured to generate a plan further comprises a circuitry (channel selection software module 335) for assigning specific frequency bands or channels to the communication devices to minimize … interferences. AP110 can generate a channel selection plan for the network, which assigns operating channels to AP111-AP116 to mitigate interference. AP110 can assign frequency bands to each of AP111-AP116 (Sections 0035, 0047, 0050, 0058, 0062, and 0064) or assign frequency channels to each of AP111-AP116 (Sections 0035, 0050, 0058, and 0062). Refer to Sections 0033-0136.
Bhushan et al and Noble et al do not disclose wherein the circuitry configured to generate a plan further comprises a circuitry for assigning specific frequency bands or channels to the communication devices to minimize the spurious emissions and interferences.
Liu et al disclose in Figures 1-5 and Sections 0025-0028 and 0033-0039 a system that allocates frequency channels according to Figures 3-4 in a network in order to mitigate interference between APs, wherein interference comes from neighboring AP cells’ co-channel interference, AP’s spurious emission, neighboring APs’ adjacent channel interference, and stations’ co-channel interference, adjacent channel interference, and spurious emission. Each AP can be assigned a frequency band (Sections 0029-0041) or a frequency channel (Sections 0026 and 0030-0041) to mitigate spurious emissions and interferences.
Refer to Sections 0011-0042. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the circuitry configured to generate a plan further comprises a circuitry for assigning specific frequency bands or channels to the communication devices to minimize the spurious emissions and interferences. One would have been motivated to do so so that a network can allocate frequency bands or channels to mitigate both interference and spurious emissions, since interference is caused by spurious emissions, thereby improving communication quality.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20200396695 to Bhushan et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20050265288 to Liu et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20200260458 to Noble et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20190335346 to Abadie et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 7155218 to Fessler et al, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 20170295581 to Takagi et al.
Bhushan et al, Liu et al, and Noble et al do not disclose wherein the circuitry configured to analyze the received signals further comprises a signal processing circuitry for determining the frequency … characteristics of the received signals to identify the spurious emissions …
Abadie et al disclose in Figures and Sections 0010, 0014, 0072 and 0085 a method of identifying spurious emissions of a device. The method receives a first signal from the device, then identifying spurious emissions in a predetermined frequency range of the first signal, and then determining a number of frequencies of the identified spurious emissions in the first signal. The method then receives a second signal from the device and measures spurious emissions in the second signal at the determined number of frequencies of the identified spurious emissions in the first signal. Refer to Sections 0064-0090. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the circuitry configured to analyze the received signals further comprises a signal processing circuitry for determining the frequency … characteristics of the received signals to identify the spurious emissions … One would have been motivated to do so to use the frequency of received signals to identify spurious emissions, thereby facilitating spurious emissions detection to improve communication quality.
Bhushan et al, Liu et al, Noble et al, and Abadie et al do not disclose wherein the circuitry configured to analyze the received signals further comprises a signal processing circuitry for determining the frequency, power, and timing characteristics of the received signals to identify the spurious emissions …
Fessler et al disclose in Figures 1-4 and Column 2 line 66 to Column 3 line 13 wherein the system serially adjusts the transmit power setting of UE and for each serially adjusted transmit power setting, determines the spurious emission output by the UE (claimed “determining the … power … characteristics of the received signals to identify the spurious emissions”). The system also considers the power of the signal transmitted by UE, at a plurality of times, in determining the spurious emission output by UE (claimed “determining the … power, and timing characteristics of the received signals to identify the spurious emissions”). Refer to Column 2 line 66 to Column 8 line 52. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the circuitry configured to analyze the received signals further comprises a signal processing circuitry for determining the frequency, power, and timing characteristics of the received signals to identify the spurious emissions … One would have been motivated to do so to use the power and timing of received signals to identify spurious emissions, thereby facilitating spurious emissions detection to improve communication quality.
Bhushan et al, Liu et al, Noble et al, Abadie et al, and Fessler et al do not disclose wherein the circuitry configured to analyze the received signals further comprises a signal processing circuitry for determining the frequency, power, and timing characteristics of the received signals to identify the spurious emissions and interferences.
Takagi et al disclose in Figures 1-28 and Sections 0040-0041 wherein an interference identifying device includes an acquiring circuitry to receive signals, a power-value calculating circuitry to determine the power of the signals, an average-power calculating circuitry to determine an average power value, a frequency count circuitry that counts, using the average power value, power values at frequencies and times exceeding the average power value (claimed “determining the frequency, power, and timing characteristics of the received signals to identify … interferences”), an identifying circuitry that identifies the interference signal from the frequency count, and the average power value, and an output circuitry that outputs the interference identification. Refer to Sections 0040-0119. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the circuitry configured to analyze the received signals further comprises a signal processing circuitry for determining the frequency, power, and timing characteristics of the received signals to identify the spurious emissions and interferences. One would have been motivated to do so so to use the frequency, power, and timing characteristics of received signals to identify interference, thereby facilitating interference detection to improve communication quality.
Claim 35 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20200396695 to Bhushan et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20050265288 to Liu et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20200260458 to Noble et al, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 20090191910 to Athalye et al.
Referring to claim 35, Bhushan et al disclose in Figures 1-9 wherein the circuitry configured to generate a plan further comprises a circuitry (transmission power adjustment software module 336) for adjusting transmission power levels of the communication devices to reduce … interferences. Sections 0050 and 0054-0056: AP110 collects the determined network parameters from AP111-AP116 and uses the determined network parameters to generate a power adjustment plan for the network. AP110 determines the optimum transmission power adjustment for each of AP111-AP116 and deploys the transmission power adjustment plan across the network to each of AP111-AP116. The deployed transmission power adjustment plan is used to mitigate co-channel interference in overlapping wireless coverage areas for the AP 110 and the AP111-AP116. Figures 5-7 and Sections 0080-0117: AP110 receives frames from a plurality of stations of a respective AP111-AP116, wherein the frames include STA-related values such as SNR values. AP110 then determines an average SNR value from the plurality of stations and compares the average SNR to a threshold SNR. A high SNR indicates low interference and a low SNR indicates high interference. If the average SNR exceeds the threshold SNR, AP110 reduces the transmission power of the respective AP111-AP116 and if the average SNR is below the threshold SNR, AP110 increases the transmission power of the respective AP111-AP116. Refer to Sections 0033-0136.
Bhushan et al, Liu et al, and Noble et al do not disclose wherein the circuitry configured to generate a plan further comprises a circuitry for adjusting transmission power levels of the communication devices to reduce the spurious emissions and interferences.
Athalye et al disclose in Figures 1-14 wherein to reduce interference, UE adjusts its transmit power levels to ensure that its spurious emissions are minimized. BS transmits instructions to UE so that UE can vary its transmit power levels in order to minimize the intensity of spurious emissions from UE that fall outside the permitted frequency allocation for UE. Refer to Sections 0007, 0045-0047, 0054-0059, 0064-0065, 0079, and 0081. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the circuitry configured to generate a plan further comprises a circuitry for adjusting transmission power levels of the communication devices to reduce the spurious emissions and interferences. One would have been motivated to do so so that a network can adjust transmission power levels to mitigate interference and spurious emissions, since interference is caused by spurious emissions, thereby improving communication quality.
Claim 36 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20200396695 to Bhushan et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20050265288 to Liu et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20200260458 to Noble et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20110085795 to Ozaki et al, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 20120082077 to Zhang et al.
Bhushan et al, Liu et al, and Noble et al do not disclose wherein the circuitry configured to generate a plan to further comprises a circuitry for implementing time-division or frequency-division multiplexing techniques to avoid collisions … between the communication devices.
Ozaki et al disclose in Figures 1-12 and Sections 0007-0010 wherein a system a time division multiplexing access scheme is used to avoid signal collisions between a plurality of nodes. Refer to Sections 0039-0089. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the circuitry configured to generate a plan to further comprises a circuitry for implementing time-division or frequency-division (not in reference; claim is in “or” form) multiplexing techniques to avoid collisions … between the communication devices. One would have been motivated to do so to use a time division multiplexing scheme to avoid signal collision between devices, thereby facilitating communication between nodes.
Bhushan et al, Liu et al, Noble et al, and Ozaki et al do not disclose wherein the circuitry configured to generate a plan to further comprises a circuitry for implementing time-division or frequency-division multiplexing techniques to avoid collisions and interferences between the communication devices.
Zhang et al disclose in Figures 1-8 and Sections 0046-0050 wherein a time division multiplexing scheme is used to prevent and avoid interference of signals being transmitted and/or received between communication devices and eNode-B. Refer to Sections 0017-0063. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include further comprising wherein the circuitry configured to generate a plan to further comprises a circuitry for implementing time-division or frequency-division (not in reference; claim is in “or” form) multiplexing techniques to avoid collisions and interferences between the communication devices. One would have been motivated to do so to use a time division multiplexing scheme to avoid signal interferences between devices, thereby facilitating communication between nodes.
Claim 37 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20200396695 to Bhushan et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20050265288 to Liu et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20200260458 to Noble et al, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 20180027506 to Pasulka et al.
Bhushan et al, Liu et al, and Noble et al do not disclose wherein the circuitry configured to generate a plan further comprises a circuitry for dynamically updating the plan based on changes in the operating environment or performance of the communication devices.
Pasulka et al disclose in Figures 1-5 and Section 0029 wherein interference occurs between APs and UEs. A power manager assigns channels based on the detected interference. The system periodically scans for interference and the power manager updates the channel assignments based on changing interference levels (claimed “dynamically updating the plan based on changes in the operating environment …”, wherein the claimed “changes in the operating environment” is changes in network interference levels). If the system detects interference from another AP in the network, the power manager adjusts the transmission power of the AP to reduce interference (claimed “dynamically updating the plan based on changes in the … performance of the communication devices”, wherein the claimed “performance of the communication devices” is the interference experienced by AP). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the circuitry configured to generate a plan further comprises a circuitry for dynamically updating the plan based on changes in the operating environment or performance of the communication devices. One would have been motivated to do so to ensure that the channel assignments and transmission powers are updated in accordance with changing conditions of the network and communication devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25, 26, and 38 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 10,720,947 to Regadamilli et al disclose in Figures 1-11 wherein UE determines, based on a first frequency scan on a RF spectrum band, that a signal strength of a signal at a frequency of the RF spectrum band satisfies a threshold; UE then performs a second frequency scan on the RF spectrum band to determine whether the signal strength of the signal at the frequency of the RF spectrum band satisfies the threshold during the second frequency scan; the device determines that the signal is a spurious emission at the frequency based on the signal strength of the signal, and configures a notch filter for mitigating the spurious emission at the frequency. Refer to Column 5 line 3 to Column 23 line 12.
U.S. Publication No. 20180262995 to Akkarakaran et al disclose in Figures 1-11 a method of determining, based on one or more parameters, an action to reduce an impact of a spurious transmission by the UE, wherein the spurious transmission relates changing a transmit power level at the UE or switching one or more radio components at the UE, and taking the determined action to reduce the impact. Refer to Sections 0033-0142.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE Y NG whose telephone number is (571)272-3124. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12pm-9pm.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 5712723139. 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.
/Christine Ng/
Examiner, AU 2464
April 3, 2026