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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see response below:
In response to applicant arguments, applicant's independent claims recite:
"determining if another wireless device is interfering by detecting channel
reservation message from the other wireless device" (claim 1);
"controller circuits configured to determining that another wireless device is
interfering by detecting channel reservation message from the other wireless
device" (claim 8); and "a first wireless device configured to determining that an out-of-network wireless device is interfering. by detecting at least one channel reservation
message from the out-of-network wireless device" (claim 16) (Examiner respectfully agree with the applicant. However, a new prior art Naghshvar et al. (US (2018/0213560 A1) disclose the claimed limitation, see rejection below).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20100165955, hereinafter “Park”) in view of Naghshvar et al. (US 2018/0213560 A1, hereinafter “Naghshvar”) and further in view of Wang et al. (US 20220329300 A1, hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Park discloses a method, comprising: by operation of a first wireless device operating on a channel of a wireless network (see Figure 1, para. 0012, STA 104 operating on different networks with shared resources), in response to determining the other wireless device is interfering with operations (see para, 0052, station report co-channel interference to central controller), activating a second wireless device to execute a mitigation operation to improve the first wireless device access to the channel, and following the activation of the second wireless device (see para. 0052, request assignment of CTA from central controller; para. 0027, central controller is the second device randomize locations of CTAs to mitigate co-channel interference). Park discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention determining if another wireless device operating outside of the wireless network is interfering with operations of the first wireless device on the channel by detecting at least one channel reservation message from the other wireless device. However, Naghshvar from a similar field of endeavor discloses determining if another wireless device operating outside of the wireless network (see para. 0059, outside the geographic coverage area) is interfering with operations of the first wireless device on the channel by detecting at least one channel reservation message from the other wireless device (see para. 0113,detecting channel reservation message from an interfering wireless device). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Naghshvar detection scheme into interference detection and mitigation scheme. The method can be implemented in a messaging detection scheme. The motivation of doing this is to monitor availability of channel for transmission and avoiding interference. Park and Naghshvar disclose all the subject matter but fails to mention in response to the first wireless device determining that the other wireless device is not interfering with its operations, deactivating the second wireless device. However, Wang from a similar field of endeavor discloses in response to the first wireless device determining that the other wireless device is not interfering with its operations, deactivating the second wireless device (see para. 0054, a process when you can activate or deactivate interference mitigation). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Wang deactivation scheme into Park and Naghshvar mitigation scheme. The method can be implemented in a mobile device. The motivation of doing this is to save resources for interference mitigation.
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses wherein, upon activation, the second wireless device is configured to execute the mitigation operation without the second wireless device determining if there is interference on the channel (see para. 0027).
Regarding claim 16, Park discloses a system, comprising: a first wireless device comprising controller circuits and wireless circuits and configured to monitor communications on a channel that is part of a network (see para. 0052, communication station 104), in response to determining that an out-of-network wireless device is interfering with the first wireless device’s access to the channel (see para. 0052, co-channel interference from neighbor network), activating at least mitigation operations of a second wireless device (see para. 0052, request assignment of CTA from central controller; para. 0027, central controller is the second device randomize locations of CTAs to mitigate co-channel interference). Park discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention explicitly in response to determining that an out-of-network wireless device is interfering with the first wireless device’s access to the channel by detecting at least one channel reservation message from the out-of-network wireless device. However, Naghshvar from a similar field of endeavor discloses in response to determining that an out-of-network wireless device (see para. 0059, outside the geographic coverage area) is interfering with the first wireless device’s access to the channel by detecting at least one channel reservation message from the out-of-network wireless device (see para. 0113,detecting channel reservation message from an interfering wireless device). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Naghshvar detection scheme into interference detection and mitigation scheme. The method can be implemented in a messaging detection scheme. The motivation of doing this is to monitor availability of channel for transmission and avoiding interference Park and Naghshvar disclose all the subject matter but fails to mention in response to determining that an out-of-network wireless device is no longer interfering with the first wireless device’s access to the channel, deactivating at least the mitigation operations of the second wireless device; and the second wireless device is configured to generate transmissions to improve access to the channel by the first wireless device when activating the mitigation operations, and cease the transmissions when deactivating the mitigation operations. However, Wang from a similar field of endeavor discloses in response to determining that an out-of-network wireless device is no longer interfering with the first wireless device’s access to the channel, deactivating at least the mitigation operations of the second wireless device (see para. 0054, 0058, activating/deactivating mitigation process); and the second wireless device is configured to generate transmissions to improve access to the channel by the first wireless device when activating the mitigation operations, and cease the transmissions when deactivating the mitigation operations (see para. 0054 and 0058). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Wang deactivation scheme into Park and Naghshvar interference detection and mitigation scheme. The method can be implemented in a mobile device. The motivation of doing this is to save resources for interference mitigation.
Claim(s) 2, 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Naghshvar and Wang as applied to claims 1, 8 and 16 above, and further in view of Li (US 2016/0198393A1)
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 18, Park, Naghshvar and Wang disclose all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein: the first wireless device is a station device (STA) compatible with at least one IEEE 802.11 wireless standard; and the second wireless device is an access point device (AP) compatible with the at least one IEEE 802.11 wireless standard. However, Li from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein: the first wireless device is a station device (STA) compatible with at least one IEEE 802.11 wireless standard; and the second wireless device is an access point device (AP) compatible with the at least one IEEE 802.11 wireless standard (see para. 0004, IEEE 802.11). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Li IEEE standard scheme into Park, Naghshvar and Wang wireless devices. The method can be implemented in mobile devices. The motivation of doing this is to follow IEEE standards to improve space utilization and suppress interference.
Claim(s) 3-4, 10, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Naghshvar, Wang and Li as applied to claims 1,2, 8, 9, 16 and 18 above, and further in view of Nishida (US 2019/0069230 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 20, Park, Naghshvar, Wang and Li discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein: the STA is part of a communication system having at least one processor; and activating the second wireless device includes starting up a soft AP device by executing predetermined code with the at least one processor. However, Nishida from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein: the STA is part of a communication system having at least one processor; and activating the second wireless device includes starting up a soft AP device by executing predetermined code with the at least one processor (see para. 0066 and 0101, activating soft AP with a predetermined process). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Nishida Soft AP activation scheme into Park, Naghshvar, Wang and Li mitigation scheme. The method can be implemented in a wireless device. The motivation of doing this is to make device to operate as an AP.
Regarding claim 4, Park, Naghshvar, Wang and Li discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein activating the second wireless device includes starting up the AP to operate in the same channel as the STA. However, Nishida from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein activating the second wireless device includes starting up the AP to operate in the same channel as the STA (see para. 0066 and 0101, operate 2.4 GHZ channel). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Nishida Soft AP activation scheme into Park, Naghshvar, Wang and Li mitigation scheme. The method can be implemented in a wireless device. The motivation of doing this is to make device to operate as an AP.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Naghshvar and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2009/0147893 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Park, Naghshvar and Wang disclose all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein determining if another wireless device is interfering with operations of the first wireless device includes determining a network address of the other wireless device. However, Takahashi from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein determining if another wireless device is interfering with operations of the first wireless device includes determining a network address of the other wireless device (see para. 0230, 0281, MAC address is the network address). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Takahashi address scheme into Park, Naghshvar and Wang mitigation scheme. The method can be implemented in a wireless device. The motivation of doing this to suppress the interference.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Naghshvar, Wang and Takahashi as applied to claim 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Cobler (US2021/0348949 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Park, Naghshvar, Wang and Takahashi disclose all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein determining if another wireless device is interfering with operations of the first wireless device further includes determining if packets from the other wireless device prevent access to the channel. However, Cobler from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein determining if another wireless device is interfering with operations of the first wireless device further includes determining if packets from the other wireless device prevent access to the channel (see para. 0042, detect interference with packet transmission). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Cobler packet transmission scheme into Park, Naghshvar, Wang and Takahashi transmission scheme. The method can be implemented in a wireless device. The motivation of doing this is to detect interference and mitigate.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Naghshvar, Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jodkins et al. (US 2019/0027809 A1, hereinafter “Jodkin”).
Regarding claim 15, Park, Naghshvar and Wang disclose all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein the wireless circuits, controller circuits and second wireless device are formed with a same integrated circuits substrate. However, Jodkins from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the wireless circuits, controller circuits and second wireless device are formed with a same integrated circuits substrate (see para. 0054, same integrated circuit substrate). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Jodkins circuitry scheme into Park, Naghshvar and Wang transceiver circuit. The method can be implemented in a wireless device. The motivation of doing this is to provide improved wireless circuitry.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Naghshvar, Wang and Li as applied to claims 16 and 18 above, and further in view of FINLOW-BATES (US 2014/0128102 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Park, Naghshvar, Wang and Li disclose all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein the second wireless device comprises a hidden AP that does not broadcast a service set identification (SSID). However, FINLOW-BATES from the similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the second wireless device comprises a hidden AP that does not broadcast a service set identification (SSID) (see para. 0040). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include FINLOW-BATES hidden AP scheme into Park, Naghshvar, Wang and Li AP scheme. The method can be implemented in a wireless network. The motivation of doing this is to improve performance.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Naghshvar and Wang as applied to claims 16 above, and further in view of Nishida (US 2019/0069230 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Park, Naghshvar and Wang disclose all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein the second wireless device comprises a software entity; and activating the second wireless device includes starting up the software entity. However, Nishida from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the second wireless device comprises a software entity; and activating the second wireless device includes starting up the software entity (see para. 0066 and 0101, activating soft AP with a predetermined process). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Nishida Soft AP activation scheme into Park, Naghshvar and Wang mitigation scheme. The method can be implemented in a wireless device. The motivation of doing this is to make device to operate as an AP.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD S ANWAR whose telephone number is (571)270-5641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-5 EST.
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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
MOHAMMAD S. ANWAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/MOHAMMAD S ANWAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463