DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-21 are pending for consideration, of which claims 1-12 are objected and claims 13-21 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/05/2024 and 07/18/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 13-17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Croke et al. (US 20220255648 A1), hereinafter referred to as Croke, in view of Barack et al. (US 20080090575-A1A1), hereinafter referred to as Barack.
Regarding claim 13:
Croke discloses a communication system (PTP radio system, 400 in Fig.4) comprising:
a terminal system (second site, element 104 in Fig. 4) comprising:
an antenna system (antenna system, elements 406 and 408 in Fig. 4) comprising:
a first antenna configured to receive wireless signals (first antenna {system} receives radio signals, e.g., wireless signals [0123]); and
a second antenna configured to receive wireless signals (second antenna {system} receives radio signals, e.g., wireless signals [0123]); and
a signal processing unit (SPU) (mediator, element 306 in Fig.3A) configured to:
receive a first wireless signal received by way of the first antenna (receiving {first} radio signal transmitted from antenna 402, [0123 or Fig.4);
receive a second wireless signal received by way of the second antenna (receiving {second} radio signal transmitted from antenna 404, [0123]) ;;
determine, based on the first wireless signal and the second wireless signal, a signal causing interference to the first wireless signal (determining signal causing interference to another signal [0125] and interferer [0133]); and
generate an interference report (generate report [0115]) ;
a coordination system ( configured to: receive the interference report (receiving report corresponding to report being transmitted [0115]);
determine that the interfering wireless signal corresponds to the wireless signal (determining interferer signal corresponding to radio signal [0033]) ;
determine, in response to determining that the interfering wireless device
corresponds to the wireless device, a second set of device transmission
characteristics configured to reduce interference of the first wireless signal (compensating for degradation by increases output power to bring SNR to expected nominal value or downshifting coding and/or modulation, e.g., transmission characteristics [0134]); and
Croke does not disclose receive, from a wireless device, a registration request identifying the wireless device, and send, to the wireless device in response to receiving the registration request, a first set of device transmission characteristics; which are known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Barak’s disclosure as below.
Barak, from the same field of endeavor, discloses a registration request identifying the wireless device (registering to access point [0139, lines 12-20]) ; and send, to the wireless device in response to receiving the registration request, a first set of device transmission characteristics (sending slot information [0139], and send, to the wireless device, the second set of device transmission characteristics (and send channel information via feedback channel to cancel interference [0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to send, to the wireless device, the second set of device transmission characteristics to reduce interference between two wireless signals/devices based on receiving the interference report; thus facilitating the provisioning for best throughput and performance in case there is a conflict between two devices communications - Barak [0137].
Regarding claim 14:
Croke in view of Barak discloses all limitations of claim 13, and –
Croke does not, while Barak further discloses exercising interference by
allocating a pilot frequency within the channel bandwidth for interference management [0177].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to assign the second set of device transmission characteristics excluding a channel used to transmit the first wireless signal; thus adapts all link parameters based on interference - Barak [0177].
Regarding claim 15:
Croke in view of Barak discloses all limitations of claim 13, and –
Croke does not, while Barak further discloses the first antenna comprises a directional antenna [0014].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to implement the use of directional antenna; thus adapts all link parameters based on interference - Barak [0177].
Regarding claim 16:
Croke in view of Barak discloses all limitations of claim 15, and –
Croke does not, while Barak further discloses the second antenna comprises an omnidirectional antenna [0014] .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to implement the use of directional antenna; thus adapts all link parameters based on interference - Barak [0177].
Regarding claim 17:
Croke in view of Barak discloses all limitations of claim 13, and –
Croke does not, while Barak further discloses the wireless device comprises an access point (AP) (AP in Fig.2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to identify an AP; thus facilitating communications in a wireless network.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 13 above, except that claim 20 is in a method claim format.
Regarding claim 21:
Claim 20 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 13 above, except that claim 21 is in a non-transitory computer medium format.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Croke in view of Barack, as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Hwang (US 12,526,118 B2), hereinafter referred to as Hwang.
Regarding claim 18:
Croke in view of Barak discloses all limitations of claim 13, and –
Croke in view of Barak do not further discloses the wireless device is associated with a unique identifier, the interference report comprises the unique identifier, the registration request comprises the unique identifier, and determining that the interfering wireless device corresponds to the wireless device comprises correlating the unique identifier of the interference report with the unique identifier of the registration request; which are known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Hwang’s disclosure as below.
Hwang, from the same field of endeavor, teaches discloses the wireless device is associated with a unique identifier, the interference report comprises the unique identifier (MAC address of user device causing interference [col.10, lines 59-67]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to include a unique identifier in the reference report and correlating the unique identifier of the interference report with the unique identifier of the registration request; thus improving throughput and overall network performance in communication systems – Hwang – [col.3, lines 11-20].
Regarding claim 19:
Croke in view of Barak and Sato discloses all limitations of claim 18, and –
Croke and Barak do not, while Sato discloses the unique identifier of the wireless device is a MAC address (a unique MAC address is allocated to each device [0023, lines 11-14]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to allocate/ use a MAC address for any device in the network; thus enabling one device to communicate with other devices by specifying the MAC address of each device – Sato [0023].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 are allowed.
Reason for the indication for allowable subject matters:
Claims 1-12 are considered allowable as they define an antenna system comprising: point-to-point antenna and wireless antennas, and an automated frequency coordination {AFC} system, and a signal processing unit {SPU} comprising signal paths associated with their specific features that are not disclosed in the cited prior arts (used to reject claims 13-21); however, they provide a significant improvement in meeting interference reduction requirements in a wireless communications network -- compared to known methods.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMQUYEN THAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7245. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and videoconferencing 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, Ayman A. Abaza, can be reached at 571-270-0422. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.Q.T./
/AYMAN A ABAZA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465