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 representative filed arguments on 10/23/2025 with respect to independent claim 13 has been considered and are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant presented arguments on Page 6 that the prior art of Damnjanovic does not specifically teach “wherein the first energy value is of a first signal on a channel before a wireless local area network (WLAN) frame is sent by the communication device, and the second energy value of a second signal on the channel after the WLAN frame is sent by the communication device; and
determining, by the communication device based on the first energy value and the second energy value, that the WLAN frame is subject to interference.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
The amended claim language describes that detecting two energy values-before and after a WLAN frame is sent by the device-and determining interference based on the difference. The claim reflects that a method for detecting interference using signal energy levels around a transmitted WLAN frame.
Damnjanovic teaches the feature “wherein the first energy value is of a first signal on a channel before a wireless local area network (WLAN) frame is sent by the communication device (as shown in FIG. 5A or 5B, the first energy value is of a first signal on a channel before a wireless local area network (WLAN) frame is sent by the communication device. See Damnjanovic [0085], [0087], [0091]), and the second energy value of a second signal on the channel after the WLAN frame is sent by the communication device” (as shown in FIG. 5A or 5B, the second energy value is of a second signal on the channel after the WLAN frame is sent by the communication deice. See Damnjanovic [0086], [0091])
Moreover, Damnjanovic specifically teaches “determining, by the communication device based on the first energy value and the second energy value, that the WLAN frame is subject to interference” (as shown in FIG. 3A or 3B, the communication device determines that the WLAN frame is subject to interfere based on the first and second energy values, which correspond to the energy sensed before and after transmission. See Damnjanovic [0071], [0075], [0121])
[Therefore, based on the detection of the first and second energy values before and after transmission of the WLAN frame, and the determination that interference occurred using these values. This sequence supports the claimed ordering and content of the messages].
Therefore, as shown above the prior art of Damnjanovic teaches the amended limitations of claims 21 and 24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Damnjanovic et al. (US 2017/0111931 A1; hereinafter "Damnjanovic").
Regarding claim 13, Damnjanovic teaches a method (FIG. 5A and FIG. 5B), comprising: detecting, by a communication device (FIG. 5A the UE 115-e), a first energy value (FIG. 5A energy during 520) and a second energy value (FIG. 5A energy 550 after RTS 540) ([0091] the UE 115-f determines that the energy level 550 detected during the low energy period 560 is above a threshold, indicating interference, [0087] the UE 115-e reports feedback 545 to the base station upon failing to decode channel reservation waveform 520, [0009] a STA or AP monitors the channel using energy detection to determine whether the channel is busy), wherein the first energy value is of a first signal (FIG. 5 the channel reservation waveform 520) on a channel before a wireless local area network (WLAN) frame (FIG. 5 RTS 540) is sent by the communication device ([0085] the channel reservation waveform 520 spans a first fractional OFDM symbol and first OFDM symbol, a preamble that spans at least a duration of the transmission of RTS 540, [0087] the UE 115-e assumes that 43 μs before a TxOP begins, the channel of the shared RF spectrum band 510 will be idle, [0121] the preamble waveform includes a first code section having a duration that is less than a shortest expected RTS transmission), and
the second energy value of a second signal (FIG. 5B data transmissions 530 or 560, 565) on the channel after the WLAN frame (FIG. 5 RTS 540) is sent by the communication device ([0086] UE 115-e fails to decode all of a portion of the code section 570 due to interference from RTS 540 in a Wi-Fi transmission 535, [0091] the UE 115-f and/or the base station 105-e determines that the energy level 550 detected during an expected low energy period 560 is greater than a threshold, the UE 115-f reports feedback 545, indicating that a collision has occurred between the channel reservation waveform 520-a and RTS 540); and
determining, by the communication device based on the first energy value and the second energy value, that the WLAN frame is subject to interference ([0071] The UE 115-a transmits feedback 345 to notify the base station 105-b that a collision occurred, [0075] determine that a collision likely occurred with RTS 340 or RTS 360 based at least in part on sensed energy levels, [0121] to enhance the likelihood of interference from an RTS transmission inhibiting the ability of a UE 115 to decode the sequence).
Regarding claim 14, Damnjanovic teaches determining, by the communication device, that the WLAN frame is subject to the interference of a first type based on the first energy value being greater than a first energy threshold ([0075] the UE 115 senses an energy level, and determine that a collision likely occurred with RTS 340 or RTS 360 based at least in part on sensed energy levels, [0091] In the event that the UE 115-f and/or the base station 105-e determines that the energy level 550 detected during an expected low energy period 560 is greater than a threshold, the UE 115-f reports feedback 545 to the base station 105-e, indicating that a collision has occurred between the channel reservation waveform 520-a and RTS 540).
Regarding claim 15, Damnjanovic teaches determining, by the communication device, an intensity of the interference based on the first energy value ([0085] The channel reservation waveform 520 starts at the beginning of a TxOP and spans a first OFDM symbol, [0091] the base station 105-e determines that the energy level 550 detected during an expected low energy period 560 is greater than a threshold. The second high energy portion spans a fractional OFDM symbol or more than one OFDM symbol).
Regarding claim 16, Damnjanovic teaches wherein the first energy threshold is a carrier sense level ([0119] the device waits for the spectrum to be clear and continue to decrement a timer (e.g., when an energy level of the channel is below a threshold, etc.), [0122] the device identifies a collision by determining whether a detected energy level is above a threshold during a portion of signal prior to a data portion of the signal).
Regarding claim 17, Damnjanovic teaches determining, by the communication device, that the WLAN frame is subject to the interference of a second type based on the first energy value being less than a first energy threshold and the second energy value being greater than a second energy threshold ([0087] the UE 115-e assumes that 43 μs before a TxOP begins, the channel will be idle, [0122] the device identifies a collision by determining whether a detected energy level is above a threshold during a portion of signal prior to a data portion of the signal (e.g., a transmission gap in a time-domain energy signature)).
Regarding claim 18, Damnjanovic teaches determining, by the communication device, an intensity of the interference based on the second energy value ([0075] determine that a collision likely occurred with RTS 340 or RTS 360 based at least in part on sensed energy levels, [0091] In the event that the UE 115-f and/or the base station 105-e determines that the intensity of the interference is based on the energy level exceeding, the UE 115-f reports feedback 545 to the base station 105-e, indicating that a collision has occurred between the channel reservation waveform 520-a and RTS 540).
Regarding claim 19, Damnjanovic teaches wherein the second energy threshold is a carrier sense level or an energy detection level ([0119] the device waits for the spectrum to be clear and continue to decrement a timer (e.g., when an energy level of the channel is below a threshold, etc.), [0122] the device identifies a collision by determining whether a detected energy level is above a threshold during a portion of signal prior to a data portion of the signal).
Regarding claim 20, Damnjanovic teaches determining, by the communication device, that the WLAN frame is subject to the interference of a third type based on one of ([0091] In some cases, the combined duration of the first high energy portion, first low energy portion, and second high energy portion have a minimum duration corresponding to the duration of an interfering transmission (e.g., maximum duration of an RTS 540), In the event that the UE 115-f and/or the base station 105-e determines that the energy level 550 detected during an expected low energy period 560 is greater than a threshold, the UE 115-f reports feedback 545):
the first energy level value being greater than 0 and less than a carrier sense level;
the second energy value being greater than 0 and less than the carrier sense level ([0087] the UE 115-e assumes that 43 μs before a TxOP begins, the channel will be idle, [0119] the device waits for the spectrum to be clear and continue to decrement a timer (e.g., when an energy level of the channel is below a threshold, etc.)), or
both the first energy level and the second energy value being greater than 0 or less than the carrier sense level.
Regarding claim 21, Damnjanovic teaches a method (FIG. 5A and FIG. 5B), comprising: determining, by a communication device (FIG. 5A the UE 115-e), that a wireless local area network (WLAN) frame (FIG. 5A RTS 540) is subject to interference based on following conditions being met before or after the communication device sends the WLAN frame ([0071] The UE 115-a transmits feedback 345 to notify the base station 105-b that a collision occurred, [0075] determine that a collision likely occurred with RTS 340 or RTS 360 based at least in part on sensed energy levels, [0121] to enhance the likelihood of interference from an RTS transmission inhibiting the ability of a UE 115 to decode the sequence):
the communication device detects that an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) symbol exists on a channel, and an energy value of the OFDM symbol is greater than a carrier sense level ([0091] In FIG. 5, the second high energy portion spans a fractional OFDM symbol or more than one OFDM symbol. If the energy level 550 detected during an expected low energy period 560 is greater than a threshold, the UE 115-f reports feedback 545, [0085] the channel reservation waveform 520 spans a first fractional OFDM symbol and first OFDM symbol).
Regarding claim 22, Damnjanovic teaches further comprising: determining, by the communication device, that the WLAN frame is subject to the interference of the first type based on the conditions being met before and after the WLAN frame is sent ([0087] the UE 115-e assumes that 43 μs before a TxOP begins, the channel will be idle, [0091] In the event that the UE determines that the energy level 550 detected during an expected low energy period 560 is greater than a threshold, and a collision has occurred).
Regarding claim 23, Damnjanovic teaches further comprising: determining, by the communication device, that the WLAN frame is subject to the interference of a second type based on the conditions being met after the WLAN frame is sent ([0086] In the event of a collision, UE 115-e fails to decode all of a portion of the code section 570 due to interference from RTS 540, [0122] the device identifies a collision by determining whether a detected energy level is above a threshold during a portion of signal prior to a data portion of the signal (e.g., a transmission gap in a time-domain energy signature)).
Regarding claim 24, Damnjanovic teaches a communication device (FIG. 9 UE 115-f), comprising: a processor (FIG. 9 the processor 905); and
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the communication device to perform operations including ([0115] The memory 915 stores computer-readable, computer-executable software/firmware code 920 including instructions that, when executed, cause the processor 905 to perform various functions):
detecting a first energy value (FIG. 5A energy during 520) and a second energy value (FIG. 5A energy 550 after RTS 540) ([0091] the UE 115-f determines that the energy level 550 detected during the low energy period 560 is above a threshold, indicating interference, [0087] the UE 115-e reports feedback 545 to the base station upon failing to decode channel reservation waveform 520, [0009] a STA or AP monitors the channel using energy detection to determine whether the channel is busy),
wherein the first energy value is of a first signal (FIG. 5A the channel reservation waveform 520) on a channel before a wireless local area network (WLAN) frame (FIG. 5A RTS 540) is sent by the communication device ([0085] the channel reservation waveform 520 spans a first fractional OFDM symbol and first OFDM symbol, a preamble that spans at least a duration of the transmission of RTS 540, [0087] the UE 115-e assumes that 43 μs before a TxOP begins, the channel of the shared RF spectrum band 510 will be idle, [0121] the preamble waveform includes a first code section having a duration that is less than a shortest expected RTS transmission), and
the second energy value of a second signal (FIG. 5B data transmissions 530 or 560, 565) on the channel after the WLAN frame (FIG. 5B RTS 540) is sent by the communication device ([0086] UE 115-e fails to decode all of a portion of the code section 570 due to interference from RTS 540 in a Wi-Fi transmission 535, [0091] the UE 115-f and/or the base station 105-e determines that the energy level 550 detected during an expected low energy period 560 is greater than a threshold, the UE 115-f reports feedback 545, indicating that a collision has occurred between the channel reservation waveform 520-a and RTS 540); and
determining, based on the first energy value and the second energy value, that the WLAN frame is subject to interference ([0071] The UE 115-a transmits feedback 345 to notify the base station 105-b that a collision occurred, [0075] determine that a collision likely occurred with RTS 340 or RTS 360 based at least in part on sensed energy levels, [0121] to enhance the likelihood of interference from an RTS transmission inhibiting the ability of a UE 115 to decode the sequence).
Regarding claim 25, Damnjanovic teaches the operations further comprising: determining that the WLAN frame is subject to the interference of a first type based on the first energy value being greater than a first energy threshold ([0075] the UE 115 senses an energy level, and determine that a collision likely occurred with RTS 340 or RTS 360 based at least in part on sensed energy levels, [0091] In the event that the UE 115-f and/or the base station 105-e determines that the energy level 550 detected during an expected low energy period 560 is greater than a threshold, the UE 115-f reports feedback 545 to the base station 105-e, indicating that a collision has occurred between the channel reservation waveform 520-a and RTS 540).
Regarding claim 26, Damnjanovic teaches the operations further comprising: determining an intensity of the interference based on the first energy value ([0085] The channel reservation waveform 520 starts at the beginning of a TxOP and spans a first OFDM symbol, [0091] the base station 105-e determines that the energy level 550 detected during an expected low energy period 560 is greater than a threshold. The second high energy portion spans a fractional OFDM symbol or more than one OFDM symbol).
Regarding claim 27, Damnjanovic teaches wherein the first energy threshold is a carrier sense level ([0119] the device waits for the spectrum to be clear and continue to decrement a timer (e.g., when an energy level of the channel is below a threshold, etc.), [0122] the device identifies a collision by determining whether a detected energy level is above a threshold during a portion of signal prior to a data portion of the signal).
Regarding claim 28, Damnjanovic teaches the operations further comprising: determining that the WLAN frame is subject to the interference of a second type based on the first energy value being less than a first energy threshold and the second energy value being greater than a second energy threshold ([0087] the UE 115-e assumes that 43 μs before a TxOP begins, the channel will be idle, [0122] the device identifies a collision by determining whether a detected energy level is above a threshold during a portion of signal prior to a data portion of the signal (e.g., a transmission gap in a time-domain energy signature)).
Regarding claim 29, Damnjanovic teaches the operations further comprising: determining an intensity of the interference based on the second energy value ([0075] determine that a collision likely occurred with RTS 340 or RTS 360 based at least in part on sensed energy levels, [0091] In the event that the UE 115-f and/or the base station 105-e determines that the intensity of the interference is based on the energy level exceeding, the UE 115-f reports feedback 545 to the base station 105-e, indicating that a collision has occurred between the channel reservation waveform 520-a and RTS 540).
Regarding claim 30, Damnjanovic teaches wherein the second energy threshold is a carrier sense level or an energy detection level ([0119] the device waits for the spectrum to be clear and continue to decrement a timer (e.g., when an energy level of the channel is below a threshold, etc.), [0122] the device identifies a collision by determining whether a detected energy level is above a threshold during a portion of signal prior to a data portion of the signal).
Regarding claim 31, Damnjanovic teaches the operations further comprising: determining that the WLAN frame is subject to the interference of a third type based on one of ([0091] In some cases, the combined duration of the first high energy portion, first low energy portion, and second high energy portion have a minimum duration corresponding to the duration of an interfering transmission (e.g., maximum duration of an RTS 540), In the event that the UE 115-f and/or the base station 105-e determines that the energy level 550 detected during an expected low energy period 560 is greater than a threshold, the UE 115-f reports feedback 545):
the first energy level value being greater than 0 and less than a carrier sense level;
the second energy value being greater than o and less than the carrier sense level ([0087] the UE 115-e assumes that 43 μs before a TxOP begins, the channel will be idle, [0119] the device waits for the spectrum to be clear and continue to decrement a timer (e.g., when an energy level of the channel is below a threshold)), or
both the first energy level and the second energy value being greater than 0 or less than the carrier sense level.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2017/0187848 A1 (ITAGAKI et al.) discloses an information processing method of exchanging information using wireless communication.
US 2018/0041911 A1 (WEN) discloses a control apparatus, a wireless communication system, and a control method.
US 2018/0020396 A1 (YOSHIMURA et al.) discloses apparatus that are applied to a communication system that controls transmission opportunities through carrier sense.
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 THEODORE IM whose telephone number is (571)270-1955. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, UN C CHO can be reached on 571-272-7919. 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.
/T.I./ Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/UN C CHO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights