DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wilhelmsson et al. (“Wilhelmsson”) (US 20240421850 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Wilhelmsson teaches:
A method performed by a Wi-Fi device or a computer system in communication with a Wi-Fi device [¶0047 Wi-Fi device, ¶0052 may be access point , the method comprising, during runtime of the Wi-Fi device: for each of a plurality of subchannels of a channel on which the Wi-Fi device is operating [see step 406, Figure 4, one or more frequency ranges corresponding to subchannels ¶0050-54]: determining, based on interference information collected for the channel, an amount of Wi-Fi and non-Wi-Fi interference detected on the subchannel over a time window [¶0049-51, Wi-Fi performs LBT, CSMA-CA procedure on subchannels to detect interference, being Bluetooth (non-Wi-Fi see ¶0051) or any signal causing the subchannel to be busy, considered to comprise non-Wi-Fi and Wi-Fi as these include all possible signals]; and upon determining that the amount of Wi-Fi and non-Wi-Fi interference detected on the subchannel exceeds a threshold [¶0054, measure interference on sub-channel to be high enough to determine channel is busy considered exceeds a threshold e.g. a certain amount of interference], marking the subchannel as being a puncture candidate subchannel [¶0054, channel marked for puncturing]; and upon determining that a number of puncture candidate subchannels exceeds zero, causing the puncture candidate subchannels to be punctured from the channel [¶0054, one or more subchannels determined for puncturing, puncture the channels according to a pattern including puncturing the channels specified as being busy, of a plurality of patterns corresponding to one more or one fewer subchannels being punctured].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelmsson et al. (“Wilhelmsson”) (US 20240421850 A1) in view of Kenney et al. (“Kenney”) (US 20130314267 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wilhelmsson teaches:
A method performed by a Wi-Fi device or a computer system in communication with a Wi-Fi device [¶0052 transmitter or receiver Wi-Fi devices may be access point], the method comprising:
for each of a plurality of subchannels of a channel on which the Wi-Fi device is operating [step 406, Figure 4, one or more frequency ranges corresponding to subchannels]:
determining, based on interference information collected for the channel, an amount of Wi-Fi and non-Wi-Fi interference detected on the subchannel over a first time window [¶0049-51, Wi-Fi performs LBT, CSMA-CA procedure on subchannels to detect interference, being Bluetooth (non-Wi-Fi see ¶0051) or any signal causing the subchannel to be busy, considered to comprise non-Wi-Fi and Wi-Fi as these include all possible signals, CSMA-CA known to detect other e.g. Wi-Fi transmissions];
and upon determining that the amount of Wi-Fi and non-Wi-Fi interference detected on the subchannel exceeds a first threshold [¶0054, measure interference on sub-channel to be high enough to determine channel is busy considered exceeds some first threshold] or the number of RADAR hits detected on the subchannel exceeds a second threshold [Examiner notes that this is an alternative step and thus does not have patentable weight], marking the subchannel as being a puncture candidate subchannel [¶0054, channel marked for puncturing]; and upon determining that a number of puncture candidate subchannels exceeds zero: selecting, from among a plurality of puncturing patterns, a puncturing pattern based on the puncture candidate subchannels; and causing the selected puncturing pattern to be applied to the channel [¶0054, one or more subchannels determined for puncturing, wherein every combination of subchannels to be punctured each corresponds to a puncturing patterns, as additional or fewer subchannels may be punctured, each combination being a puncturing pattern that is selected].
Wilhelmsson teaches determining to puncture channels but does not specify detecting RADAR
Kenney teaches determining, based on RADAR activity information collected for the channel, a number of RADAR hits detected on the subchannel over a second time window [¶0026, ¶0034, ¶0048, ¶0052-54 shows detecting RADAR signals i.e. hits over period of time considered second time window].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify detecting RADAR hits as in Kenney. Wilhelmsson teaches detecting non-Wi-Fi signals and performing puncturing but does not specify capability to determine RADAR signals. It would have been obvious to specify the step of detecting RADAR signals as in Kenney who teaches this allows avoiding interference with radar signals ¶0045, ¶0054.
Regarding claim 2, Wilhelmsson-Kenney teaches:
The method of claim 1 wherein the channel is greater than 40 MHz in width [Wilhelmsson ¶0028].
Regarding claim 3, Wilhelmsson-Kenney teaches the method of claim 1 wherein each subchannel in the plurality of subchannels is at least 20 MHz in width [Wilhelmsson ¶0030, ¶0067].
Regarding claim 4, Wilhelmsson-Kenney teaches The method of claim 1 wherein the method is executed for each of a plurality of channels on which the Wi-Fi device is operating [Wilhelmsson ¶0049 interference detection on each of the frequency bands].
Regarding claim 5, Wilhelmsson-Kenney teaches The method of claim 1 wherein the method is repeated on a periodic basis during runtime of the Wi-Fi device [Wilhelmsson ¶0054 step takes place at regular intervals].
Regarding claim 6, Wilhelmsson-Kenney teaches The method of claim 1 wherein selecting the puncturing pattern based on the puncture candidate subchannels comprises selecting one of the plurality of puncturing patterns that allows all of the puncture candidate subchannels to be punctured [Wilhelmsson ¶0054, subchannels with high interference selected to be punctured thus all puncture candidates are punctured if interference detected in said subchannels].
Regarding claim 7, Wilhelmsson-Kenney teaches The method of claim 1 wherein the computer system is in communication with a plurality of Wi-Fi devices and executes the method with respect to each of the plurality of Wi-Fi devices [Wilhelmsson ¶0052 “The different Wi-Fi stations (STAs), i.e. the transmitter and receiver (either of which may be an access point in some examples) can then exchange information about which frequency range(s) are interfered in this way to enhance the accuracy or speed up the detection of a Bluetooth interferer.”].
Regarding claim 8. Wilhelmsson teaches:
A Wi-Fi device comprising: a processor; and a computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon program code that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: for each of a plurality of subchannels of a channel on which the Wi-Fi device [¶0047 Wi-Fi device, ¶0052 may be access point, see step 406, Figure 4, one or more frequency ranges corresponding to subchannels ¶0050-54]] is operating:
determine, based on interference information collected for the channel, an amount of Wi-Fi and non-Wi-Fi interference detected on the subchannel over a first time window [¶0049-51, Wi-Fi performs LBT, CSMA-CA procedure on subchannels to detect interference, being Bluetooth (non-Wi-Fi see ¶0051) or any signal causing the subchannel to be busy, considered to comprise non-Wi-Fi and Wi-Fi as these include all possible signals];
and upon determining that the amount of Wi-Fi and non-Wi-Fi interference detected on the subchannel exceeds a first threshold [¶0054, measure interference on sub-channel to be high enough to determine channel is busy considered exceeding a first threshold being the amount triggering the channel labeled busy] or the number of RADAR hits detected on the subchannel exceeds a second threshold [Examiner notes that this is an alternative step and thus does not have patentable weight], marking the subchannel as being a puncture candidate subchannel [¶0054, channel marked for puncturing]; and upon determining that a number of puncture candidate subchannels exceeds zero: select, from among a plurality of puncturing patterns, a puncturing pattern based on the puncture candidate subchannels; and cause the selected puncturing pattern to be applied to the channel [¶0054, one or more subchannels determined for puncturing, wherein every combination of subchannels to be punctured each corresponds to a puncturing patterns, as additional or fewer subchannels may be punctured, each combination being a puncturing pattern that is selected].
Wilhelmsson teaches determining to puncture channels but does not specify detecting RADAR
Kenney teaches determining, based on RADAR activity information collected for the channel, a number of RADAR hits detected on the subchannel over a second time window [¶0026, ¶0034, ¶0048, ¶0052-54 shows detecting RADAR signals i.e. hits].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify detecting RADAR hits as in Kenney. Wilhelmsson teaches detecting non-Wi-Fi signals and performing puncturing but does not specify capability to determine RADAR signals. It would have been obvious to specify the step of detecting RADAR signals as in Kenney who teaches this allows avoiding interference with radar signals ¶0045, ¶0054.
Regarding claim 11, Wilhelmsson-Kenney teaches:
The Wi-Fi device of claim 8 wherein the channel is a wide channel on a 5 GHz band or a 6 GHz band [Wilhelmsson ¶0047].
Regarding claim 12, Wilhelmsson-Kenney teaches:
The Wi-Fi device of claim 8 wherein a subset of the interference information or the RADAR activity information is received from other Wi-Fi devices in a vicinity of the Wi-Fi device [Wilhelmsson ¶0052 “The different Wi-Fi stations (STAs), i.e. the transmitter and receiver (either of which may be an access point in some examples) can then exchange information about which frequency range(s) are interfered in this way to enhance the accuracy or speed up the detection of a Bluetooth interferer.”].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelmsson et al. (“Wilhelmsson”) (US 20240421850 A1) in view of Kenney et al. (“Kenney”) (US 20130314267 A1) and Igari (US 20210029101 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Wilhelmsson-Kenney teaches:
The Wi-Fi device of claim 8.
Wilhelmsson teaches Wi-Fi but not expressly Wi-Fi 6 however Igari teaches wherein the Wi-Fi device is a Wi-Fi 6 or Wi-Fi 7 access point [¶0028 Wi-Fi 6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the Wi-Fi may be Wi-Fi 6. Wilhelmsson teaches the device may be Wi-Fi device ¶0052, and it would have been obvious to specify Wi-Fi 6 as in Igari as this would have been an obvious combination of prior art elements according to known techniques as is known for IEEE 802.11ax series ¶0028.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelmsson et al. (“Wilhelmsson”) (US 20240421850 A1) in view of Kenney et al. (“Kenney”) (US 20130314267 A1) and Panje (US 20200205036 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Wilhelmsson-Kenney teaches:
The Wi-Fi device of claim 8 wherein the processor is further configured to: collect the interference information and the RADAR activity information during runtime of the Wi-Fi device [Wilhelmsson ¶0054 scan for interference, Kenney ¶0052-54 shows detecting RADAR signals i.e. hits see rationale for combination as in claim 8].
Wilhelmsson-Kenney teaches scanning the channels but not on a continuous basis.
Panje teaches collect information on a continuous basis during runtime of the Wi-Fi device [¶0021-22, continuously scan full range of frequency channels to determine if channel in use, avoid based on interference].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify continuous monitoring of types of interference on Wi-Fi channels as in Panje in order to detect if the channel can be used or if it must be avoided to prevent interference ¶0021-22.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelmsson et al. (“Wilhelmsson”) (US 20240421850 A1) in view of Kenney et al. (“Kenney”) (US 20130314267 A1) and Wu et al. (“Wu”) (US 20240380517 A1, effective filing date of provisional application 63/502,018 filed May 12, 2023.)
Regarding claim 13, Wilhelmsson-Kenney teaches:
The Wi-Fi device of claim 8.
Wilhelmsson teaches puncturing patterns but not according to 802.11x.
Wu teaches wherein the plurality of puncturing patterns are defined in an 802.11x standard supported by the Wi-Fi device, and where each of the plurality of puncturing patterns specifies a predefined set of subchannels to be punctured [¶0164, sets of preamble puncture patterns indicated by 802.11 standards].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the predefined puncturing patterns as in Wu who teaches this allows for puncturing channels in use between two device to offer improvements to ranging accuracy ¶0126.
Regarding claim 14, Wilhelmsson-Kenney teaches:
The Wi-Fi device of claim 8.
Wilhelmsson teaches puncturing pattern but not a preamble puncture command.
Wu teaches wherein the processor causes the selected puncturing pattern to be applied to the channel by transmitting a preamble puncturing command identifying the selected puncturing pattern to a driver of a radio of the Wi-Fi device that is operating on the channel [¶0163, puncture pattern indicated in signal between Wi-Fi devices thus supplied to driver of a radio of one Wi-Fi device to be transmitted to the other, corresponding to preamble puncturing command].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the predefined puncturing patterns and supplying a preamble puncturing command as in Wu who teaches this allows for puncturing channels in use between two device to offer improvements to ranging accuracy ¶0126.
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelmsson et al. (“Wilhelmsson”) (US 20240421850 A1) in view of Li et al. (“Li”) (US 20210153210 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Wilhelmsson teaches:
The method of claim 15.
Wilhelmsson teaches determining to puncture channels but does not specify detecting RADAR
Li teaches further comprising, for each of the plurality of subchannels of a channel: determining, based on RADAR activity information collected for the channel, a number of RADAR hits detected on the subchannel over another time window [¶0236, detect RADAR hit on a channel, corresponding to number of RADAR hits, and this is over a time window as any time the RADAR is detected is considered within unspecified time window].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify detecting RADAR hits as in Li. Wilhelmsson teaches detecting non-Wi-Fi signals and performing puncturing but does not specify capability to determine RADAR signals. It would have been obvious to specify the step of detecting RADAR signals as in Li to avoid channels where interference is extremely severe ¶0237.
Regarding claim 17, Wilhelmsson-Li teaches:
The method of claim 16.
Wilhelmsson teaches marking a channel as unavailable based on interference but not the radar hits.
Li teaches wherein the subchannel is further marked as being a puncture candidate subchannel upon determining that the number of RADAR hits detected on the subchannel exceeds another threshold [¶0236, determine any RADAR signal (corresponding to hits exceeds another threshold, threshold e.g. any hits), mark channel as unusable for 20 MHz subchannel].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify detecting RADAR hits as in Li. Wilhelmsson teaches detecting non-Wi-Fi signals and performing puncturing but does not specify capability to determine RADAR signals. It would have been obvious to specify the step of detecting RADAR signals and puncturing these channels as in Li to avoid channels where interference is extremely severe ¶0237.
Regarding claim 18, Wilhelmsson-Li teaches:
The method of claim 16, wherein causing the puncture candidate subchannels to be punctured from the channel comprises: selecting, from among a plurality of puncturing patterns, a puncturing pattern based on the puncture candidate subchannels; and causing the selected puncturing pattern to be applied to the channel [¶0054, one or more subchannels determined for puncturing, wherein every combination of subchannels to be punctured each corresponds to a puncturing patterns, as additional or fewer subchannels may be punctured, each combination being a puncturing pattern that is selected, and in same paragraph causing the subchannels to be punctured].
Regarding claim 19, Wilhelmsson-Li teaches:
The method of claim 18 wherein selecting the puncturing pattern based on the puncture candidate subchannels comprises selecting one of the plurality of puncturing patterns that allows all of the puncture candidate subchannels to be punctured [Wilhelmsson ¶0054, subchannels with high interference selected to be punctured thus all puncture-candidates are punctured if interference detected].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 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. US 20170272977 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L. VOGEL whose telephone number is 303-297-4322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30 PM MT.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at 571-272-3905. 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.
/JAY L VOGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478