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 § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 1-5, 13, 15-19, 27-28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou (US 2025/0039915 A1) in view of Nayak (US 2024/0373242 A1).
Lou teaches a multi-link operation (MLO) between a STA multi-link device (MLD) and an AP MLD, wherein the MLO comprises detecting/predicting interference and stopping transmission of at least a subset of traffic during the determined interference window. Lou further teach interference duration 906, interference duration 902, and/or interference interval 908 but it does not explicitly teach whether or not this window is a “future time interval”. Nayak is used to explicitly teach that the determined interval is a future interval. See Lou Fig. 9 recreated below for an exemplary interference event occurring in a MLO.
PNG
media_image1.png
682
980
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Lou discloses the below limitation(s): operating, by a processing device, a first radio of a plurality of radios of a multi-link (ML) device to communicate in a first frequency band with a networking device ([0103] Multi-link operation (MLO) enables a non-AP multi-link device (MLD) (i.e. ML device) to set up multiple links with an AP MLD (i.e. a network device); [0102] MLO may allow a STA to communicate with an AP over multiple frequency bands/communication links at the same time using multiple transceivers and/or antennas (i.e. a plurality of radios));
determining a potential interference or an actual interference between the first radio of the plurality of radios and the different radio based on the future time interval of the different radio ([0111] STA may receive indications that another STA is going to transmit on the Bluetooth radio (i.e. the different radio) and become aware that it may interfere with WiFi radio (i.e. the first radio) communications … in another example, the Bluetooth radio may be co-located with a WiFi STA; see also Fig 9 for an exemplary diagram of an interfering signal at a STA); and
preventing the first radio from communicating in the first frequency band during one or more portions of the future time interval to reduce the potential interference or the actual interference ([0114]-[0115] in response to STA reporting existing/expected interference, the AP or the AP MLD may cease transmission to the STA for a period).
Lou does not disclose the below limitation(s): determining a future time interval for a different radio of a communication device to communicate in the first frequency band;
In the same field of endeavor of multi-link operation to account for interference, Nayak does disclose the below limitation(s): determining a future time interval for a different radio of a communication device to communicate in the first frequency band (Nayak [[0092] AP can advertise its self-interference to the STA and Table 1 interference type may be BLUETOOTH, which examiner is interpreting as "a different radio"; [0154] AP can indicate the duration of the self-interference window in the duration field of the CTS-to-self frame);
preventing the first radio from communicating in the first frequency band during one or more portions of the future time interval to reduce the potential interference or the actual interference (Fig 24 and [0154] STA delays UL transmission beyond a self-interference window …STAs that hear the AP's CTS-to-self frame [indicating interference] can defer their transmission thereby avoiding transmitting uplink data to the AP in the interference window).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teaching of Lou to include determining a future interference interval as taught by Nayak. The suggestion/motivation to combine would have been to prevent congestion caused by BLUETOOTH transmission in order to improve quality of a WiFi transmission on the same frequency/time resources. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lou and Nayak to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 2, Lou and Nayak disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Lou further discloses the below limitation(s): receiving, by the processing device from the communication device, activity data indicative of at least one of a future transmission by the communication device in the first frequency band (Lou [0111] STA may be aware of an ongoing or a future wireless transmission nearby through wireless interference … STA may receive indications that another STA is going to transmit on the Bluetooth radio (i.e. the different radio) and become aware that it may interfere with WiFi radio (i.e. the first radio) communications),
wherein determining the future timing interval is further based on the activity data ([0112] each interference instance 904 may occur within a corresponding interference interval 908).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned multi-link device/method to include determining a future transmission that may cause interference as taught by Lou. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to identify a future source of interreference in order to take corrective action before the interference happens. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lou and Nayak to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 3, Lou and Nayak disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Lou further discloses the below limitation(s): wherein the first radio of the plurality of radios and the different radio are each coupled to a shared resource for communicating in the first frequency band (Lou [0038] communication system may enable multiple wireless users to access content through the sharing of system resources, including wireless bandwidth), and
determining a future time interval for the first radio of the ML device to communicate in the first frequency band (Lou Fig 15 and [0157] interference interval subfield may indicate the time duration of an interference instance or the average time duration of interference instances);
Lou does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the first radio of the plurality of radios and the different radio are each coupled to a shared resource for communicating in the first frequency band, and
determining a partial or complete overlap of the future time interval for the first radio and the future time interval for the communication device.
In the same field of endeavor of multi-link operation to account for interference, Nayak does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the first radio of the plurality of radios and the different radio are each coupled to a shared resource for communicating in the first frequency band (Nayak [0056] one or more non-WiFi technology radios (i.e. the different radio(s)) can coexist on a WiFi device (e.g. AP or non-AP STA), and these non-WiFi radios may cause self-interference, which examiner is interpreting as simultaneous communication in the same (first) frequency band), and
determining a future time interval for the first radio of the ML device to communicate in the first frequency band ([0154] AP can indicate the duration of the self-interference window in the duration field of the CTS-to-self frame); and
determining a partial or complete overlap of the future time interval for the first radio and the future time interval for the communication device ([0112] AP can avoid assigning those RUs to the STAs which overlap with channels facing non-WiFi interference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned multi-link device/method to include determining that there is a frequency overlap at a future time for radios that are sharing a resource, wherein the resource can be interpreted as a time/frequency resource as taught by Lou and/or as a hardware resource (e.g. shared processor) as taught by Nayak. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to identify a future issue and take corrective measures before it comes to pass. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lou and Nayak to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 4, Lou and Nayak disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Lou does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the first radio of the plurality of radios of the ML device and the different radio of the communication device are simultaneously communicating in the first frequency band.
In the same field of endeavor of multi-link operation to account for interference, Nayak does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the first radio of the plurality of radios of the ML device and the different radio of the communication device are simultaneously communicating in the first frequency band (Nayak [0056] one or more non-WiFi technology radios (i.e. the different radio(s)) can coexist on a WiFi device (e.g. AP or non-AP STA), and these non-WiFi radios may cause self-interference, which examiner is interpreting as simultaneous communication in the same (first) frequency band).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned multi-link device/method to include simultaneous communication across both WiFi (i.e. first radio) and Bluetooth (i.e. different radio) as taught by Nayak. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to support simultaneous transmission for improved throughput for situations where interference is not an issue. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lou and Nayak to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 5, Lou and Nayak disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Lou further discloses the below limitation(s): determining that at least one of
a first received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of the first radio is less than a first predetermined threshold value (Lou Fig 27 and associated [0180] Interference Report Type subfield 2602 may be set to a value 2702b (e.g. 001) to indicate an RSSI measurement based on the NDP transmitted from non-serving AP; [0117] interference signal power level (which examiner is interpreting as RSSI) or duration is below a certain threshold, indicating that interference is less significant) or
a second RSSI of the different radio is less than a second predetermined threshold value ([0117] Operation mode 1 may indicate the interference is less significant (e.g. the interference signal power level i.e. RSSI is below a certain threshold))
while the first radio and the different radio are simultaneously communicating in the first frequency band ([0102] MLO may allow a STA to communicate with an AP over multiple frequency bands/communication links at the same time using multiple transceivers and/or antennas).
In the same field of endeavor of multi-link operation to account for interference, Nayak also discloses the below limitation(s): a first received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of the first radio is less than a first predetermined threshold value (Nayak [0110] to address self-interference, a target RSSI (i.e. RSSI threshold) can be communicated) … while the first radio and the different radio are simultaneously communicating in the first frequency band ([0056] one or more non-WiFi technology radios (i.e. the different radio(s)) can coexist on a WiFi device (e.g. AP or non-AP STA), and these non-WiFi radios may cause self-interference, which examiner is interpreting as simultaneous communication in the same (first) frequency band).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned multi-link device/method to include using an RSSI to determine interference during simultaneous radio transmission as taught by Lou and further taught by Nayak. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to using RSSI to determine whether interference is likely to occur in order to take corrective action in response to determined interference. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lou and Nayak to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 13, Lou and Nayak disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Lou further discloses the below limitation(s): wherein the first radio of the plurality of radios of the ML device communicates in the first frequency band using WiFi technology and the different radio of the communication device communicates in the first frequency band using Bluetooth technology (Lou [0111] STA may have a WiFi radio and a Bluetooth radio; [0110] interference may include a transmission from another transmitter or radio communicating on another wireless communication link (e.g. a Bluetooth radio) in the same device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned multi-link device/method to include a plurality of WiFi radios and at least one Bluetooth radio as taught by Lou. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to enable a device to communicate simultaneously on both WiFi and Bluetooth for improved throughput. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lou and Nayak to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 15, Lou discloses the below limitation(s): a plurality of radios; and one or more processors coupled to the plurality of radios (Lou Fig 1 processor 118 and transceiver 120; [0102] MLO may allow a STA to communicate with an AP over multiple frequency bands/communication links at the same time using multiple transceivers and/or antennas (i.e. a plurality of radios)), the one or more processors configured to:
operate a first radio of the plurality of radios to communicate in a first frequency band with a networking device ([0103] Multi-link operation (MLO) enables a non-AP multi-link device (MLD) (i.e. ML device) to set up multiple links with an AP MLD (i.e. a network device); [0102] MLO may allow a STA to communicate with an AP over multiple frequency bands/communication links at the same time using multiple transceivers and/or antennas (i.e. a plurality of radios));
determine a potential interference or an actual interference between the first radio of the plurality of radios and the different radio based on the future time interval of the different radio ([0111] STA may receive indications that another STA is going to transmit on the Bluetooth radio (i.e. the different radio) and become aware that it may interfere with WiFi radio (i.e. the first radio) communications … in another example, the Bluetooth radio may be co-located with a WiFi STA; see also Fig 9 for an exemplary diagram of an interfering signal at a STA); and
prevent the first radio from communicating in the first frequency band during one or more portions of the future time interval to reduce the potential interference or the actual interference ([0114]-[0115] in response to STA reporting existing/expected interference, the AP or the AP MLD may cease transmission to the STA for a period).
Lou does not disclose the below limitation(s): determine a future time interval for a different radio of a communication device to communicate in the first frequency band;
In the same field of endeavor of multi-link operation to account for interference, Nayak does disclose the below limitation(s): determine a future time interval for a different radio of a communication device to communicate in the first frequency band (Nayak [0092] AP can advertise its self-interference to the STA and Table 1 interference type may be BLUETOOTH, which examiner is interpreting as "a different radio"; [0154] AP can indicate the duration of the self-interference window in the duration field of the CTS-to-self frame);
prevent the first radio from communicating in the first frequency band during one or more portions of the future time interval to reduce the potential interference or the actual interference (Fig 24 and [0154] STA delays UL transmission beyond a self-interference window …STAs that hear the AP's CTS-to-self frame [indicating interference] can defer their transmission thereby avoiding transmitting uplink data to the AP in the interference window).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teaching of Lou to include determining a future interference interval as taught by Nayak. The suggestion/motivation to combine would have been to prevent congestion caused by BLUETOOTH transmission in order to improve quality of a WiFi transmission on the same frequency/time resources. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lou and Nayak to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 16, Lou and Nayak disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 15.
Lou further discloses the below limitation(s): receive, from the communication device, activity data indicative of at least one of a future transmission by the communication device in the first frequency band (Lou [0111] STA may be aware of an ongoing or a future wireless transmission nearby through wireless interference … STA may receive indications that another STA is going to transmit on the Bluetooth radio (i.e. the different radio) and become aware that it may interfere with WiFi radio (i.e. the first radio) communications),
wherein determining the future timing interval is further based on the activity data ([0112] each interference instance 904 may occur within a corresponding interference interval 908).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned multi-link device/method to include determining a future transmission that may cause interference as taught by Lou. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to identify a future source of interreference in order to take corrective action before the interference happens. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lou and Nayak to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 17, Lou and Nayak disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 15.
Lou further discloses the below limitation(s): wherein the first radio of the plurality of radios and the different radio are each coupled to a shared resource for communicating in the first frequency band (Lou [0038] communication system may enable multiple wireless users to access content through the sharing of system resources, including wireless bandwidth), and
determine a future time interval for the first radio of the ML device to communicate in the first frequency band (Fig 15 and [0157] interference interval subfield may indicate the time duration of an interference instance or the average time duration of interference instances); and
Lou does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the first radio of the plurality of radios and the different radio are each coupled to a shared resource for communicating in the first frequency band, and
determine a future time interval for the first radio of the ML device to communicate in the first frequency band; and
determine a partial or complete overlap of the future time interval for the first radio and the future time interval for the communication device.
In the same field of endeavor of multi-link operation to account for interference, Nayak does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the first radio of the plurality of radios and the different radio are each coupled to a shared resource for communicating in the first frequency band (Nayak [0056] one or more non-WiFi technology radios (i.e. the different radio(s)) can coexist on a WiFi device (e.g. AP or non-AP STA), and these non-WiFi radios may cause self-interference, which examiner is interpreting as simultaneous communication in the same (first) frequency band), and
determine a future time interval for the first radio of the ML device to communicate in the first frequency band ([0154] AP can indicate the duration of the self-interference window in the duration field of the CTS-to-self frame); and
determine a partial or complete overlap of the future time interval for the first radio and the future time interval for the communication device ([0112] AP can avoid assigning those RUs to the STAs which overlap with channels facing non-WiFi interference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned multi-link device/method to include determining that there is a frequency overlap at a future time for radios that are sharing a resource, wherein the resource can be interpreted as a time/frequency resource as taught by Lou and/or as a hardware resource (e.g. shared processor) as taught by Nayak. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to identify a future issue and take corrective measures before it comes to pass. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lou and Nayak to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 18, Lou and Nayak disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 15.
Lou does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the first radio of the plurality of radios of the ML device and the different radio are simultaneously communicating in the first frequency band.
In the same field of endeavor of multi-link operation to account for interference, Nayak does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the first radio of the plurality of radios of the ML device and the different radio are simultaneously communicating in the first frequency band (Nayak [0056] one or more non-WiFi technology radios (i.e. the different radio(s)) can coexist on a WiFi device (e.g. AP or non-AP STA), and these non-WiFi radios may cause self-interference, which examiner is interpreting as simultaneous communication in the same (first) frequency band).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned multi-link device/method to include simultaneous communication across both WiFi (i.e. first radio) and Bluetooth (i.e. different radio) as taught by Nayak. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to support simultaneous transmission for improved throughput for situations where interference is not an issue. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lou and Nayak to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 19, Lou and Nayak disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 15.
Lou further discloses the below limitation(s): a first received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of the first radio is less than a first predetermined threshold value (Lou Fig 27 and associated [0180] Interference Report Type subfield 2602 may be set to a value 2702b (e.g. 001) to indicate an RSSI measurement based on the NDP transmitted from non-serving AP; [0117] interference signal power level (which examiner is interpreting as RSSI) or duration is below a certain threshold, indicating that interference is less significant) or
a second RSSI of the different radio is less than a second predetermined threshold value ([0117] Operation mode 1 may indicate the interference is less significant (e.g. the interference signal power level i.e. RSSI is below a certain threshold))
while the first radio and the different radio are simultaneously communicating in the first frequency band ([0102] MLO may allow a STA to communicate with an AP over multiple frequency bands/communication links at the same time using multiple transceivers and/or antennas).
In the same field of endeavor of multi-link operation to account for interference, Nayak also discloses the below limitation(s): a first received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of the first radio is less than a first predetermined threshold value (Nayak [0110] to address self-interference, a target RSSI (i.e. RSSI threshold) can be communicated) … while the first radio and the different radio are simultaneously communicating in the first frequency band ([0056] one or more non-WiFi technology radios (i.e. the different radio(s)) can coexist on a WiFi device (e.g. AP or non-AP STA), and these non-WiFi radios may cause self-interference, which examiner is interpreting as simultaneous communication in the same (first) frequency band).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned multi-link device/method to include using an RSSI to determine interference during simultaneous radio transmission as taught by Lou and further taught by Nayak. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to using RSSI to determine whether interference is likely to occur in order to take corrective action in response to determined interference. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lou and Nayak to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 27, Lou and Nayak disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 15.
Lou further discloses the below limitation(s): wherein the first radio of the plurality of radios of the ML device communicates in the first frequency band using WiFi technology and the different radio of the communication device communicates in the first frequency band using Bluetooth technology (Lou [0111] STA may have a WiFi radio and a Bluetooth radio; [0110] interference may include a transmission from another transmitter or radio communicating on another wireless communication link (e.g. a Bluetooth radio) in the same device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned multi-link device/method to include a plurality of WiFi radios and at least one Bluetooth radio as taught by Lou. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to enable a device to communicate simultaneously on both WiFi and Bluetooth for improved throughput. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lou and Nayak to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 28, Lou and Nayak disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 15.
Lou further discloses the below limitation(s): wherein a system on chip (SOC) comprise the ML device and the communication device (wherein examiner is interpreting SOC as a STA comprising co-located ML device (WiFi radio(s)) and communication device (Bluetooth radio(s)) Lou [0102] MLO may allow a STA to communicate with an AP over multiple frequency bands/communication links at the same time using multiple transceivers and/or antennas (i.e. a plurality of radios); [0111] the Bluetooth radio may be co-located with a WiFi STA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned multi-link device/method to include WiFi and Bluetooth radios co-located on a single device as taught by Lou. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to co-locate WiFi and Bluetooth antennas so that the host device can communicate using WiFi and Bluetooth protocols simultaneously. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lou and Nayak to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 30, Lou discloses the below limitation(s): a multi-link (ML) module comprising a plurality of radios, and a processor coupled to the plurality of radios (Lou Fig 1 processor 118 and transceiver 120; [0102] MLO may allow a STA to communicate with an AP over multiple frequency bands/communication links at the same time using multiple transceivers and/or antennas (i.e. a plurality of radios)); and
a communication module comprising a different radio ([0111] STA may receive indications that another STA is going to transmit on the Bluetooth radio (i.e. the different radio)); wherein the processor configured to:
operate a first radio of the plurality of radios to communicate in a first frequency band with a networking device ([0103] Multi-link operation (MLO) enables a non-AP multi-link device (MLD) (i.e. ML device) to set up multiple links with an AP MLD (i.e. a network device); [0102] MLO may allow a STA to communicate with an AP over multiple frequency bands/communication links at the same time using multiple transceivers and/or antennas (i.e. a plurality of radios));
determine a potential interference or an actual interference between the first radio of the plurality of radios and the different radio based on the future time interval of the different radio ([0111] STA may receive indications that another STA is going to transmit on the Bluetooth radio (i.e. the different radio) and become aware that it may interfere with WiFi radio (i.e. the first radio) communications … in another example, the Bluetooth radio may be co-located with a WiFi STA; see also Fig 9 for an exemplary diagram of an interfering signal at a STA); and
prevent the first radio from communicating in the first frequency band during one or more portions of the future time interval to reduce the potential interference or the actual interference ([0114]-[0115] in response to STA reporting existing/expected interference, the AP or the AP MLD may cease transmission to the STA for a period).
Lou does not disclose the below limitation(s): determine a future time interval for the different radio of the communication module to communicate in the first frequency band; In the same field of endeavor of multi-link operation to account for interference, Nayak does disclose the below limitation(s): determine a future time interval for the different radio of the communication module to communicate in the first frequency band (Nayak [0092] AP can advertise its self-interference to the STA and Table 1 interference type may be BLUETOOTH, which examiner is interpreting as "a different radio"; [0154] AP can indicate the duration of the self-interference window in the duration field of the CTS-to-self frame; [0154] AP can indicate the duration of the self-interference window in the duration field of the CTS-to-self frame);
prevent the first radio from communicating in the first frequency band during one or more portions of the future time interval to reduce the potential interference or the actual interference (Fig 24 and [0154] STA delays UL transmission beyond a self-interference window …STAs that hear the AP's CTS-to-self frame [indicating interference] can defer their transmission thereby avoiding transmitting uplink data to the AP in the interference window).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teaching of Lou to include determining a future interference interval as taught by Nayak. The suggestion/motivation to combine would have been to prevent congestion caused by BLUETOOTH transmission in order to improve quality of a WiFi transmission on the same frequency/time resources. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lou and Nayak to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 9-12 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou in view of Nayak and further in view of Patil (US 2023/0053972 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Lou and Nayak disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Lou and Nayak do not disclose the below limitation(s): switching the first radio from an active state to a low-power state to stop a communication in the first frequency band with the networking device; and
operating a second radio of the plurality of radios of the ML device to resume the communication with the networking device in a second frequency band.
In the same field of endeavor of multi-link operation to account for interference, Patil does disclose the below limitation(s): switching the first radio from an active state to a low-power state to stop a communication in the first frequency band with the networking device; and
operating a second radio of the plurality of radios of the ML device to resume the communication with the networking device in a second frequency band (Patil [0201] MLD may place AP associated with the non-primary link into a sleep state (i.e. low-power), a doze state, or a power-off state while remaining fully operational on the primary link in order to reduce cross-link interference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned multi-link device/method to include switching a radio from an active state to a low-power state in response to interference as taught by Patil. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to lower interference by reducing the amount of transmission via usage of low-power state(s). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lou, Nayak and Patil to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 10, Lou, Nayak and Patil disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 9.
Lou and Nayak do not disclose the below limitation(s):Lou and Nayak do not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the low-power state is a sleep state.
In the same field of endeavor of multi-link operation to account for interference, Patil does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the low-power state is a sleep state (Patil [0102] and [0201] MLD may place AP associated with the non-primary link into a sleep state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned multi-link device/method to include putting a radio into a sleep state in response to interference as taught by Patil. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to put a radio into a sleep state in order to reduce transmission and interference caused by said radio. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lou, Nayak and Patil to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 11, Lou, Nayak and Patil disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 9.
Lou and Nayak do not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the low-power state is a power-down state.
In the same field of endeavor of multi-link operation to account for interference, Patil does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the low-power state is a power-down state (Patil [0201] MLD may place AP associated with the non-primary link into a power-off state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned multi-link device/method to include powering down a radio in response to interference as taught by Patil. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to power-off a radio in order to reduce transmission and interference caused by said radio. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lou, Nayak and Patil to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 12, Lou, Nayak and Patil disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 9.
Lou further discloses the below limitation(s): operating the first radio to send, to the networking device, a message indicating that the ML device is switching from the first frequency band to the second frequency band (Lou [0116] STA/AP may respond to interference by transmitting an operation mode),
wherein the message causes the networking device to communicate with the ML device in the second frequency band ([0126] an exemplary Operation mode 10 may allow a STA to transmit on a secondary channel (i.e. different frequency band) instead of primary channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned multi-link device/method to include sending an indication of a mode change in response to detected interference as taught by Lou. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to indicate a switch to a different mode (e.g. frequency band) in order to address interference. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lou, Nayak and Patil to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 23, Lou and Nayak disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 15.
Lou and Nayak do not disclose the below limitation(s): switching the first radio from an active state to a low-power state to stop a communication in the first frequency band with the networking device; and
operating a second radio of the plurality of radios of the ML device to resume the communication with the networking device in a second frequency band.
In the same field of endeavor of multi-link operation to account for interference, Patil does disclose the below limitation(s): switching the first radio from an active state to a low-power state to stop a communication in the first frequency band with the networking device; and
operating a second radio of the plurality of radios of the ML device to resume the communication with the networking device in a second frequency band (Patil [0201] MLD may place AP associated with the non-primary link into a sleep state (i.e. low-power), a doze state, or a power-off state while remaining fully operational on the primary link in order to reduce cross-link interference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned multi-link device/method to include switching a radio from an active state to a low-power state in response to interference as taught by Patil. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to lower interference by reducing the amount of transmission via usage of low-power state(s). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lou, Nayak and Patil to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 24, Lou, Nayak and Patil disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 23.
Lou and Nayak do not disclose the below limitation(s):Lou and Nayak do not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the low-power state is a sleep state.
In the same field of endeavor of multi-link operation to account for interference, Patil does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the low-power state is a sleep state (Patil [0102] and [0201] MLD may place AP associated with the non-primary link into a sleep state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned multi-link device/method to include putting a radio into a sleep state in response to interference as taught by Patil. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to put a radio into a sleep state in order to reduce transmission and interference caused by said radio. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lou, Nayak and Patil to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 25, Lou, Nayak and Patil disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 23.
Lou and Nayak do not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the low-power state is a power-down state.
In the same field of endeavor of multi-link operation to account for interference, Patil does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the low-power state is a power-down state (Patil [0201] MLD may place AP associated with the non-primary link into a power-off state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned multi-link device/method to include powering down a radio in response to interference as taught by Patil. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to power-off a radio in order to reduce transmission and interference caused by said radio. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lou, Nayak and Patil to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 26, Lou, Nayak and Patil disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 23.
Lou further discloses the below limitation(s): operating the first radio to send, to the networking device, a message indicating that the ML device is switching from the first frequency band to the second frequency band (Lou [0116] STA/AP may respond to interference by transmitting an operation mode),
wherein the message causes the networking device to communicate with the ML device in the second frequency band ([0126] an exemplary Operation mode 10 may allow a STA to transmit on a secondary channel (i.e. different frequency band) instead of primary channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned multi-link device/method to include sending an indication of a mode change in response to detected interference as taught by Lou. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to indicate a switch to a different mode (e.g. frequency band) in order to address interference. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lou, Nayak and Patil to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 14, 20-22 and 29 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: a thorough and complete search has been conducted and no prior art has been found that solely, or in any reasonable combination, reads on each element of the indicated claim(s). In particular, the language of Claim 6, namely “determining that the actual interference is no longer present by determining that the first RSSI of the first radio is greater than the first predetermined threshold value and the second RSSI of the different radio is greater than the second predetermined threshold value;”, overcomes previously cited prior art by performing a step not contemplated by the prior art. No prior art was found that determines interference during an MLO based on comparing two distinct RSSIs to two distinct predetermined thresholds. Claims 7-8 and 20-22 recite and/or inherit at least the same novel subject matter and are objected to allow for at least the same reason(s).
In particular, the language of Claim 14, namely “determining whether the second future time interval is less than or greater than twice the switching time”, overcomes previously cited prior art by performing a step not contemplated by the prior art. No prior art was found that teaches a threshold value that is more than twice the time it takes to switch from one radio to another, and further using that threshold to determine a future time interval. Claim 29 recites at least the same novel limitation and is objected to allow for at least the same reason(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. While it was not relied on for the §103 rejection above, examiner would like to bring attention to reference Soma (US 2024/0179765 A1) which is directed to determining an interference level based on reception signal strength (i.e. RSSI) at a multi-link device. See, for example, Soma [0107] which describes identifying inter-link interference and Fig. 17, recreated below, which teaches measuring a link quality (e.g. interference) during MLO.
PNG
media_image2.png
682
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN D MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8599. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 8-5.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached at (571) 270-7191. 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.
/SHAWN D MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412