DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed 5/11/2026. Claims 1-36 are currently pending in the application.
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 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
The independent claims have been amended to include new limitations stating “wherein the interference estimation attributes include interference estimation tones” and “generating, based on the set of interference statistics, an interference covariance matrix”. Applicant argues that previously cited Lomayev et al. (U.S. Publication US 2021/0044407 A1) is generally directed towards calibration of reference channel estimations, not interference estimations. However, while it is true that Lomayev et al. does deal with channel estimations, Lomayev et al. also discloses that the channel estimations may correspond to interference (See paragraph 216 of Lomayev et al.). Thus, the channel estimations made by Lomayev et al. may correspond to interference statistics, as claimed.
Lomayev et al., however, does not specifically disclose “generating, based on the set of interference statistics, an interference covariance matrix”. It is believed that this amended claim limitation is rendered obvious in view of the teachings of previously cited Magee et al. (U.S. Publication US 2003/0076900 A1). Specifically, Magee et al. discloses computing noise estimation for data tones base on channel estimation that is then used to determine a covariance matrix indicative of the noise estimates (See paragraph 8, paragraph 43, paragraph 47, and paragraphs 64-67 of Magee et al.). Magee et al. also discloses that the computed noise covariance may be used to update transmission and reception characteristics such as beamforming (See paragraphs 137-140 of Magee et al. for reference to this advantage). Thus, new grounds of rejection of the amended claim limitations are made in view of these teachings of previously cited Magee et al. Please see the rejections below for further detail.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 14-15, 27-30, and 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomayev et al. (U.S. Publication US 2021/0044407 A1) in view of Magee et al. (U.S. Publication US 2003/0076900 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Lomayev et al. discloses a method of interference estimation for communications between WLAN (wireless local area network) devices (See the abstract, paragraph 27, paragraphs 31-32, paragraph 93, and Figure 1 of Lomayev et al. for reference to devices in a WLAN performing a method of channel estimation with respect to interference, i.e. based on a Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) of the wireless communication channel). Lomayev et al. also discloses adding a set of interference estimation attributes to a PPDU, wherein the interference estimation attributes include interference estimation tones (See paragraph 93, paragraph 216, and paragraphs 246-249 of Lomayev et al. for reference to embodiments including increasing the number of symbols within the LTF field of a PPDU, transmitting the LTF field multiple times, adding a new channel estimation field at the end of the PPDU similar to a TRN field used for WLAN sensing, etc. in order to perform channel estimation that may be based on a SNR and correspond to interference, such that the added symbols are types of interference estimation tones). Lomayev et al. further discloses transmitting the PPDU from and receiving the PPDU at a WLAN device (See paragraphs 227-228 and Figures 1 and 5 of Lomayev et al. for reference to transmitting the PPDU from a WLAN device and receiving the PPDU at another WLAN device). Lomayev et al. also discloses estimating a set of interference statistics, by the WLAN device, by comparing the set of interference estimation attributes to a corresponding set of predefined attribute values (See paragraph 93, paragraph 222, paragraph 228, and paragraphs 246-249 of Lomayev et al. for reference to performing channel estimation based on a SNR of the channel by comparing estimates obtained from multiple PPDUs over time). Lomayev et al. does not specifically disclose generating, based on the set of interference statistics, an interference covariance matrix. However, Magee et al., in the field of communications, discloses computing noise estimation for data tones base on channel estimation that is then used to determine a covariance matrix indicative of the noise estimates (See paragraph 8, paragraph 43, paragraph 47, and paragraphs 64-67 of Magee et al.). Magee et al. also discloses that the computed noise covariance may be used to update transmission and reception characteristics such as beamforming (See paragraphs 137-140 of Magee et al. for reference to this advantage). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Magee et al., to combine determining a covariance matrix indicative of noise estimates based on channel estimation, as suggested by Magee et al., within the system and method of Lomayev et al., with the motivation being to update transmission and reception characteristics such as beamforming based on the covariance matrix.
With respect to claim 2, Lomayev et al. discloses wherein the set of interference estimation attributes includes an interference estimation field (IEF) including a set of interference estimation symbols in the PPDU, the set of interference estimation symbols including the interference estimation tones (See paragraph 93, paragraph 216, and paragraphs 246-249 for reference to the channel estimation based on a SNR and corresponding to interference being determined according to added LTF symbols, a LTF transmitted multiple times, and/or a new channel estimation field, which are each equivalent to the claimed IEF including a set of interference estimation symbols).
With respect to claim 4, Lomayev et al. discloses wherein the interference estimation symbols include at least one of a STF (short-training field) or EHT-STF , an EHT-LTF (long-training field) symbol, or a combination of both the STF and the EHT-STF (See paragraph 99 and paragraph 246 of Lomayev et al. for reference to an embodiment wherein the channel may be estimated based on symbols of a LTF that may be an EHT LTF of the PPDU).
With respect to claim 6, Lomayev et al. discloses wherein the interference estimation symbols are present in a preamble portion of the PPDU (See paragraph 246 and Figure 5 of Lomayev et al. for reference to the symbols used for channel estimation being in the LTF field of the PPDU, which is in a preamble portion of the PPDU as illustrated in Figure 5).
With respect to claim 7, Lomayev et al. discloses wherein the IEF is added to a long-training field (LTF) in a preamble portion of the PPDU (See paragraph 246 and Figure 5 of Lomayev et al. for reference to the symbols used for channel estimation being added to the LTF field of the PPDU, which is in a preamble portion of the PPDU as illustrated in Figure 5).
With respect to claim 14, Lomayev et al. discloses wherein the set of interference estimation attributes includes a set of interference estimation tones in a set of OFDM tones configured to modulate the PPDU (See paragraph 22, paragraphs 246-249, and Figure 5 of Lomayev et al. for reference to wireless signals being modulated according to OFDM, such that the symbols and fields added to the PPDU for channel estimation are in OFDM modulated tones).
With respect to claim 15, Lomayev et al. discloses wherein the interference estimation tones include a new tone added to the set of OFDM tones (See paragraph 22, paragraphs 246-249, and Figure 5 of Lomayev et al. for reference to wireless signals being modulated according to OFDM, such that the new channel estimation field added to is in new OFDM modulated tones).
With respect to claim 27, Lomayev et al. discloses wherein the WLAN device is either an access point (AP) or a non-access point station (non-AP STA) (See paragraphs 31-32 and Figure 1 of Lomayev et al. for reference to the WLAN devices being an AP or a STA that is not an AP).
With respect to claim 28, Lomayev et al. discloses wherein the PPDU only includes the set of interference estimation attributes (See paragraph 93, paragraph 170, and paragraph 246 of Lomayev et al. for reference to an embodiment wherein the purpose of the PPDU is to perform channel estimation based on a SNR, wherein the PPDU is sent without data as a Null-Data-Packet such that it includes only the channel estimation attributes).
With respect to claim 29, Lomayev et al. discloses wherein the PPDU is an interference training PPDU (ITP) that includes the set of interference estimation attributes (See paragraph 93 and paragraph 246 of Lomayev et al. for reference to the PPDU being a channel estimation PPDU including fields for channel estimation based on a SNR, such that the PPDU is equivalent to the claimed ITP).
With respect to claim 30, Lomayev et al. discloses wherein the ITP is periodically transmitted by a transmitter for enabling a receiver to estimate the interference statistics and feedback to the transmitter (See paragraph 93, paragraphs 211-214, and Figure 4 of Lomayev et al. for reference to the PPDUs for channel estimation based on a SNR being periodically transmitted, as illustrated in Figure 4).
With respect to claim 32, Lomayev et al. discloses wherein the PPDU includes a legacy preamble portion, an additional preamble portion, and a data portion; and wherein each of the portions includes at least one of the set of interference estimation attributes (See paragraphs 246-249 and Figure 5 of Lomayev et al. for reference to the PPDU including a LTF field, which is a legacy preamble portion, additional transmissions of the LTF field, which are additional preamble portions, and a new channel estimation field at the end of the PPDU, which is a data portion of the PPDU, such that symbols for channel estimation may be added to each of these portions of the PPDU).
With respect to claim 33, Lomayev et al. discloses wherein the WLAN device is a first WLAN device, the method further comprising: sending a request, by a second WLAN device, to transmit the interference statistics estimated by the first WLAN device to the second WLAN device (See paragraph 235 of Lomayev et al. for reference to a WLAN device sending a request to another WLAN device to send PPDUs indicating channel estimation measurements).
With respect to claim 34, Lomayev et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the WLAN device includes a set of transmit attributes or a set of receive attributes, the method further comprising: adapting either the set of transmit attributes or the set of receive attributes based, at least in part, on the interference covariance matrix. However, as shown above in the rejection of claim 1, Magee et al. renders obvious adjust transmit and receive characteristics, i.e. beamforming, based on a computed covariance matrix (See paragraph 8, paragraph 43, paragraph 47, paragraphs 64-67, and paragraphs 137-140 of Magee et al.). Thus, this claim is rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claim 1.
With respect to claim 35, Lomayev et al. discloses a WLAN (wireless local area network) device configured as an access point (AP), comprising: a controller (See the abstract, paragraph 27, paragraphs 31-32, and Figure 1 of Lomayev et al. for reference to devices in a WLAN including an AP having a controller). Lomayev et al. also discloses defining a PPDU having a set of interference estimation attributes, the interference estimation attributes include interference estimation tones (See paragraph 93, paragraph 216, and paragraphs 246-249 of Lomayev et al. for reference to embodiments including configuring a PPDU with increased the number of symbols within the LTF field of a PPDU, the LTF field transmitted multiple times, a new channel estimation field added at the end of the PPDU similar to a TRN field used for WLAN sensing, etc. in order to perform channel estimation that may be based on a SNR and correspond to interference, such that the added symbols are types of interference estimation tones). Lomayev et al. further discloses receiving the PPDU including the set of interference estimation attributes from a non-AP station (STA) (See paragraphs 31-32, paragraphs 227-228, and Figures 1 and 5 of Lomayev et al. for reference to receiving the PPDU from a WLAN device that may be a STA). Lomayev et al. also discloses estimating a set of interference statistics by comparing the set of interference estimation attributes to a corresponding set of predefined attribute values (See paragraph 93, paragraph 222, paragraph 228, and paragraphs 246-249 of Lomayev et al. for reference to performing channel estimation based on a SNR of the channel by comparing estimates obtained from multiple PPDUs over time). Lomayev et al. does not specifically disclose generating, based on the set of interference statistics, an interference covariance matrix. However, Magee et al., in the field of communications, discloses computing noise estimation for data tones base on channel estimation that is then used to determine a covariance matrix indicative of the noise estimates (See paragraph 8, paragraph 43, paragraph 47, and paragraphs 64-67 of Magee et al.). Magee et al. also discloses that the computed noise covariance may be used to update transmission and reception characteristics such as beamforming (See paragraphs 137-140 of Magee et al. for reference to this advantage). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Magee et al., to combine determining a covariance matrix indicative of noise estimates based on channel estimation, as suggested by Magee et al., within the system and method of Lomayev et al., with the motivation being to update transmission and reception characteristics such as beamforming based on the covariance matrix.
With respect to claim 36, Lomayev et al. discloses A WLAN (wireless local area network) device configured as a non-access point (AP) station (STA), comprising: a controller (See the abstract, paragraph 27, paragraphs 31-32, and Figure 1 of Lomayev et al. for reference to devices in a WLAN including an STA not acting as an AP and having a controller). Lomayev et al. also discloses receiving a PPDU including a set of interference estimation attributes from an AP, the interference estimation attributes include interference estimation tones (See paragraphs 31-32, paragraph 93, paragraph 216, paragraphs 227-228, paragraphs 246-249, and Figures 1 and 5 of Lomayev et al. for reference to embodiments including receiving a PPDU with the number of symbols within the LTF field being increased, the LTF field being transmitted multiple times, a new channel estimation field added at the end of the PPDU similar to a TRN field used for WLAN sensing, etc. in order to perform channel estimation that may be based on a SNR and corresponding to interference, such that the added symbols are types of interference estimation tones). Lomayev et al. further discloses estimating a set of interference statistics by comparing the set of interference estimation attributes to a corresponding set of predefined attribute values (See paragraph 93, paragraph 222, paragraph 228, and paragraphs 246-249 of Lomayev et al. for reference to performing channel estimation based on a SNR of the channel by comparing estimates obtained from multiple PPDUs over time). Lomayev et al. does not specifically disclose generating, based on the set of interference statistics, an interference covariance matrix. However, Magee et al., in the field of communications, discloses computing noise estimation for data tones base on channel estimation that is then used to determine a covariance matrix indicative of the noise estimates (See paragraph 8, paragraph 43, paragraph 47, and paragraphs 64-67 of Magee et al.). Magee et al. also discloses that the computed noise covariance may be used to update transmission and reception characteristics such as beamforming (See paragraphs 137-140 of Magee et al. for reference to this advantage). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Magee et al., to combine determining a covariance matrix indicative of noise estimates based on channel estimation, as suggested by Magee et al., within the system and method of Lomayev et al., with the motivation being to update transmission and reception characteristics such as beamforming based on the covariance matrix.
Claims 3, 5, 8, 10-12, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomayev et al. in view of Magee et al., and in further view of Lim et al. (U.S. Publication US 2022/0158881 A1).
With respect to claim 3, although Lomayev et al. does disclose an embodiment wherein a new channel estimation field is added at the end of the PPDU, which is shown to be a data portion of the PPDU (See paragraph 246 and Figure 5 of Lomayev et al.), Lomayev et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the interference estimation symbols are inserted periodically every multiple symbols throughout a data portion of the PPDU.
With respect to claim 5, although Lomayev et al. does disclose an embodiment wherein a new channel estimation field is added at the end of the PPDU, which is shown to be a data portion of the PPDU (See paragraph 246 and Figure 5 of Lomayev et al.), Lomayev et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the interference estimation symbols are inserted in a data portion of the PPDU.
With respect to claim 8, although Lomayev et al. does disclose an embodiment wherein a new channel estimation field is added at the end of the PPDU, which is shown to be a data portion of the PPDU (See paragraph 246 and Figure 5 of Lomayev et al.), Lomayev et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the interference estimation tones are included in data symbols of the PPDU.
With respect to claim 23, Lomayev et al. discloses wherein the set of interference estimation attributes include a set of interference estimation symbols in the PPDU and wherein the interference estimation tones are included in a preamble portion of the PPDU (See paragraph 93 and paragraphs 246-249 of Lomayev et al. for reference to embodiments including increasing the number of symbols within the LTF field of a PPDU, which is part of the preamble of the PPDU, transmitting the LTF field multiple times, adding a new channel estimation field at the end of the PPDU, etc. in order to perform channel estimation that may be based on a SNR). Although Lomayev et al. does disclose an embodiment wherein a new channel estimation field is added at the end of the PPDU, which is shown to be a data portion of the PPDU (See paragraph 246 and Figure 5 of Lomayev et al.), Lomayev et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the interference estimation symbols are inserted in a data portion of the PPDU;.
With further respect to claims 3, 5, 8, and 23, Lim et al. in the field of communications, discloses embodiments wherein a midable used for performing channel estimation is added periodically within the data part of a PPDU (See paragraph 289, paragraphs 308-311, and Figure 26 of Lim et al.). Periodically adding estimation symbols within the data portion of a PPDU has the advantage of allowing for improved performance when transmitting and receiving PPDUs in a high speed environment (See paragraph 6-8 of Lim et al. for reference to this advantage). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Lim et al., to combine periodically adding estimation symbols within the data portion of a PPDU, as suggested by Lim et al., within the system and method of Lomayev et al., with the motivation being to allow for improved performance when transmitting and receiving PPDUs in a high speed environment.
With respect to claim 24, Lomayev et al. discloses wherein the interference estimation tones are added to a long-training field (LTF) in the preamble portion (See paragraph 246 and Figure 5 of Lomayev et al. for reference to adding symbols for channel estimation of the LTF field in the preamble of the PPDU).
With respect to claim 10, Lomayev et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the interference estimation tones have predefined values. However, Lim et al., in the field of communications, discloses the signal added on tones for channel estimation each being configured with the same LTF sequence, i.e. a predefined sequence (See paragraphs 315-319 of Lim et al.). Using a predefined LTF sequence has the advantage of ensuring both the transmitter and receiver of the PPDU have knowledge of the specific sequence to be used for channel estimation. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Lim et al., to combine using a predefined LTF sequence, as suggested by Lim et al., within the system and method of Lomayev et al., with the motivation being to ensure both the transmitter and receiver of the PPDU have knowledge of the specific sequence to be used for channel estimation.
With respect to claim 11, Lomayev et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the interference estimation tones are distributed at multiple frequencies throughout a data portion of the PPDU.
With respect to claim 12, Lomayev et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the interference estimation tones are evenly distributed at multiple frequencies throughout a data portion of the PPDU.
With respect to claim 20, Lomayev et al. does not specifically disclose shifting an interference estimation tone in the set of interference estimation tones from one data symbol in the PPDU to another data symbol in the PPDU until the interference statistics are measured over an entire bandwidth of the PPDU.
With respect to claim 21, Lomayev et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the set of interference estimation tones are a distributed RU tone plan.
With further respect to claims 11-12 and 20-21, Lim et al., in the field of communications, discloses an embodiment wherein an LTF sequence in the data portion of the PPDU for channel estimation is carried on all available tones within a bandwidth, such that they are evenly distributed through all the tones within the bandwidth allowing channel estimation to be measured over the entire bandwidth (See paragraph 319-321 and Figure 26 of Lim et al.). Transmitting an LTF sequence for channel estimation on all available tones within a bandwidth has the advantage of allowing the channel estimation to be performed over the entire bandwidth. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Lim et al., to combine transmitting an LTF sequence for channel estimation on all available tones within a bandwidth, as suggested by Lim et al., within the system and method of Lomayev et al., with the motivation being to allow the channel estimation to be performed over the entire bandwidth.
With respect to claim 22, Lomayev et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the interference estimation tones share a same spacing as pilot tones. However, Lim et al., in the field of communications, discloses the midamble using the same sequence and tones as the LTF, which is a pilot sequence of tones (See paragraphs 315-319 of Lim et al.). Using the same sequence and tones as defined for the LTF has the advantage of allowing an already defined sequence and tones to be used for additional channel estimation. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Lim et al., to combine using the same sequence and tones as defined for the LTF, as suggested by Lim et al., within the system and method of Lomayev et al., with the motivation being to allow an already defined sequence and tones to be used for additional channel estimation.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomayev et al. in view of Magee et al. and Lim et al., and in further view of Shellhammer et al. (U.S. Publication US 2021/0194629 A1).
With respect to claim 9, Lomayev et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the interference estimation tones are unloaded. However, Shellhammer et al., in the field of communications, discloses a PPDU including tones with null values, i.e. unloaded tones, for interference measurement (See paragraph 103 and Figure 10 of Shellhammer et al.). Using tones with null values has the advantage of allowing for more accurate interference estimation. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Shellhammer et al., to combine using tones with null values, as suggested by Shellhammer et al., within the system and method of Lomayev et al., with the motivation being to allow for more accurate interference estimation.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomayev et al. in view of Magee et al. and Lim et al.
With respect to claim 13, Lomayev et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the interference estimation tones are distributed based on a priori knowledge of interference at known frequencies in a data portion of the PPDU. However, Magee et al., in the field of communication, discloses transmitting a subset of tones used for noise estimation that are selected based on previously monitored noise (See paragraph 8 and paragraph 38 of Magee et al.). Transmitting on a selected subset of tones has the advantage of reducing the number of calculations required for each data burst (See paragraph 8 of Magee et al. for reference to this advantage). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Magee et al., to combine transmitting on a selected subset of tones, as suggested by Magee et al., within the system and method of Lomayev et al., with the motivation being to reduce the number of calculations required for each data burst.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomayev et al. in view of Magee et al., and in further view of Baik et al. (U.S. Publication US 2013/0266083 A1).
With respect to claim 16, Lomayev et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the interference estimation tones puncture at least one tone in the set of OFDM tones.
With respect to claim 17, Lomayev et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the interference estimation tones puncture a pilot tone in the set of OFDM tones.
With respect to claim 18, although Lomayev et al. does disclose the PPDU being modulated according to OFDM (See paragraph 22 of Lomayev et al.), Lomayev et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the interference estimation tones puncture at least one tone in the set of OFDM tones modulating either a preamble portion or a data portion of the PPDU.
With respect to claim 19, Lomayev et al. does not specifically disclose wherein a subset of data tones of the PPDU are defined to be punctured
With further respect to claims 16-19, Baik et al., in the field of communications, discloses performing channel estimation using punctured tones, wherein the tones may be punctured in pilot tones, i.e. preamble tones, and data tones (See paragraphs 175-176 and Figure 14 of Baik et al.). Using punctured tones has the advantage of allowing different wireless devices to more easily co-exist. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Baik et al., to combine using punctured tones, as suggested by Baik et al., within the system and method of Lomayev et al., with the motivation being to allowing different wireless devices to more easily co-exist.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomayev et al. in view of Magee et al., and in further view of Shellhammer et al.
With respect to claim 25, although Lomayev et al. does disclose the set of interference estimation tones includes a set of interference estimation (IE) tones in a set of OFDM tones configured to modulate the PPDU (See paragraph 22, paragraphs 246-249, and Figure 5 of Lomayev et al. for reference to wireless signals being modulated according to OFDM, such that the symbols and fields added to the PPDU for channel estimation are in OFDM modulated tones), Lomayev et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the set of interference estimation attributes include a set of null data tones.
With respect to claim 26, although Lomayev et al. does disclose the set of interference estimation attributes includes a set of interference estimation (IE) tones in a set of OFDM tones configured to modulate the PPDU (See paragraph 22, paragraphs 246-249, and Figure 5 of Lomayev et al. for reference to wireless signals being modulated according to OFDM, such that the symbols and fields added to the PPDU for channel estimation are in OFDM modulated tones), Lomayev et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the set of null data tones are defined for each signal bandwidth.
With further respect to claims 25-26, Shellhammer et al., in the field of communications, discloses a PPDU including tones with null values for interference measurement in each of multiple bandwidths (See paragraph 57, paragraph 103 and Figure 10 of Shellhammer et al.). Using tones with null values has the advantage of allowing for more accurate interference estimation. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Shellhammer et al., to combine using tones with null values, as suggested by Shellhammer et al., within the system and method of Lomayev et al., with the motivation being to allow for more accurate interference estimation.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomayev et al. in view of Magee et al., and in further view of Sun et al. (U.S. Publication US 2020/0099596 A1).
With respect to claim 31, Lomayev et al. does not specifically disclose sending the ITP only when a packet error rate for the communications between WLAN devices exceeds a predetermined level. However, Sun et al., in the field of communications, discloses sending a PPDU probe for channel estimation based on one or more communication performance metrics , i.e. when PER is greater than a PER threshold (See paragraph 40, paragraphs 54-55, and paragraph 84 of Sun et al.). Sending a PPDU for channel estimation only when a PER is greater than a PER threshold has the advantage of only performing updated channel estimation when poor channel performance is detected. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Sun et al., to combine sending a PPDU for channel estimation only when a PER is greater than a PER threshold, as suggested by Sun et al., within the system and method of Lomayev et al., with the motivation being to only perform updated channel estimation when poor channel performance is detected.
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 Jason E Mattis whose telephone number is (571)272-3154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4:30pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-2723155. 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.
/JASON E MATTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights