Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The Office Action is in response to amendment filed on 02/23/2026.
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment filed on 02/23/2026, independent Claim 8, 15 have been amended; therefore, claims 1-20 are pending.
4. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/23/2026, pages 6-19 have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim under 35 U.S.C. §103 has been fully considered.
The applicants argued that the prior arts (LIU et al. (US 20230087282) and in view of Charles et al. ( Adaptive Frequency Hopping for Reduced Interference between Bluetooth® and Wireless LAN)) does not disclose the limitations in the independent claim 1, since:
“These limitations define a cross-system control chain requiring three sequential
steps: (i) the Wi-Fi station obtains information about the Bluetooth AFH band; (ii) the
Wi-Fi station actively informs the Wi-Fi AP about the AFH band; and (iii) the Wi-Fi AP selects a Wi-Fi operating band based on the AFH band information received from the Wi-Fi station. This control chain involves cross-system information transfer (from Bluetooth to Wi-Fi) and a causal dependency (the AP's band selection depends on the
AFH band).LIU does not disclose the claimed cross-system control chain…. FIG. 7 of LIU describes a Wi-Fi
connection establishment procedure (including probe request/response and scanning
across Wi-Fi channels), not an information exchange about Bluetooth AFH bands. The
2.4 GHz and 5 GHz frequency bands mentioned in FIG. 7 of LIU are Wi-Fi operating
bands being scanned and selected as part of the Wi-Fi connection process. They are not
Bluetooth AFH bands, and they are not being communicated from the Wi-Fi station to
the AP for the purpose of enabling the AP to make a band selection decision based on
Bluetooth information…. LIU lacks the two essential elements of the claimed control chain:
(i) The Wi-Fi station informing the AP about a Bluetooth AFH band (no such
information transfer occurs in LIU); and (ii) The AP selecting a Wi-Fi frequency band "according to" the Bluetooth AFH band (no such causal dependency exists in LIU; the AP's frequency band in LIU is determined by Wi-Fi system parameters, not by Bluetooth AFH band
information”
“Charles does not remedy the deficiency of LIU… Applicant
acknowledges that Charles describes the AFH mechanism introduced by the Bluetooth
Special Interest Group (SIG), which enables Bluetooth devices to identify and avoid
channels experiencing interference from frequency-static sources such as wireless LAN… However, the AFH mechanism described in Charles operates as a self-contained
control loop on the Bluetooth side. In Charles, the Bluetooth device itself performs
channel assessment, identifies interfered channels, updates the channel map or
exclusion list, and hops among the remaining available channels. The entire
decision-making process is closed within the Bluetooth system. Charles does not teach
or suggest that the Bluetooth AFH band information should be communicated to a
Wi-Fi access point, nor does it suggest that a Wi-Fi AP should use Bluetooth AFH band
information as an input parameter for selecting its own Wi-Fi operating band.
The control loop direction in Charles is fundamentally different from that recited
in Claim 1 In Charles, the Bluetooth side adapts to the wireless environment by
avoiding interference. In Claim 1, the information flows in the opposite direction: the
Wi-Fi station transmits Bluetooth AFH band information to the AP (STA to AP), and the
AP uses that information to select its Wi-Fi operating band (AP-side decision). This
cross-system information transfer and AP-side decision-making based on Bluetooth
information is not taught, suggested, or implied by Charles"
“The combination of LIU and Charles fails to render Claim 1 obvious. Even if
one were to combine the teachings of LIU and Charles, the result would be, at most, a
system where (a) Wi-Fi performs its own frequency band selection based on Wi-Fi
system parameters (from LIU), and (b) Bluetooth independently performs its own AFH
to avoid WLAN interference (from Charles). These two mechanisms would coexist but
operate independently, each making its own frequency decisions based on its own
inputs. There is no bridge connecting Bluetooth AFH band information to the AP's
Wi-Fi band selection process”.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectively disagree. After reviewing the prior arts and the current claim limitations, Examiner believes that the current prior arts ( combination of LIU et al. (US 20230087282) and in view of Charles et al. ( Adaptive Frequency Hopping for Reduced Interference between Bluetooth® and Wireless LAN)).teach the limitations in independent claim 1.
Follows are reason:
The current claim limitations in independent claim 1 is quite broad. It does not reflect what applicant explained as a “cross-system control chain” with “requiring three sequential steps: (i) the Wi-Fi station obtains information about the Bluetooth AFH band; (ii) the Wi-Fi station actively informs the Wi-Fi AP about the AFH band; and (iii) the Wi-Fi AP selects a Wi-Fi operating band based on the AFH band information received from the Wi-Fi station. “. The limitation is repeated here:
“linking a Wi-Fi access point (AP) to a Wi-Fi station integrated with a Bluetooth system; the Wi-Fi station informing the Wi-Fi access point about at least one adaptive frequency hopping band in Bluetooth connection of the Wi-Fi station; and the Wi-Fi access point communicating with the Wi-Fi station using at least one frequency band selected according to the at least one adaptive frequency hopping band”.
The combination of LIU and Charles every limitations in claim 1.
LIU teaches almost everything in claim 1 but adaptive frequency hopping band in Bluetooth.
First, LIU teaches linking a Wi-Fi access point (AP) to a Wi-Fi station integrated with a Bluetooth system in fig. 6; in which, Mobile phone is a Wi-Fi station integrated with a Bluetooth system and Router 1 is Wi-Fi access point (AP);
Second, LIU teaches the Wi-Fi station informing the Wi-Fi access point about at least one band in Bluetooth connection of the Wi-Fi station in fig. 7, the 2.4 GHz or 5GHz is the one band in Bluetooth connection of the Wi-Fi station.
Please note: fig. 7 including information exchange between the Wi-Fi station (mobile phone) and the Wi-Fi AP (router) from scanning/network selection to step 101-109, in which, when the communication has been established, Wi-Fi station informing the Wi-Fi access point about at least one band in Bluetooth connection by default, as also suggested in paragraph 0175-0177, “… the mobile phone performs a network selection phase. In the network selection phase, the mobile phone may obtain signal strength of a corresponding Wi-Fi network based on a received probe response message, and the mobile phone may select and access, based on a specified network selection condition, one Wi-Fi network in one or more Wi-Fi networks found through scanning… for example, the mobile phone scans and displays a plurality of Wi-Fi networks as shown in FIG. 8, and the user may click the Huawei1 (a Wi-Fi network in a 5 GHz frequency band) option, to specify a network to connect to. In response to the operation performed by the user, the mobile phone may select this network in the network selection phase, and perform a subsequent access process, that is, establish a 5 GHz connection with the router 1 corresponding to the Huawei1 network”.
Third, LIU teaches the Wi-Fi access point communicating with the Wi-Fi station using at least one frequency band selected in fig. 6, the 5GHZ is established.
On the other hand, Charles discloses of what LIU lacks, that is: the adaptive frequency hopping band in Bluetooth in page 1, … a technique known as Adaptive Frequency Hopping has been introduced by the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG) to diminish the impact of such interference.
Therefore, it is obvious that to combine the technology of Charles with the teaching of LIU to achieve:
“linking a Wi-Fi access point (AP) to a Wi-Fi station integrated with a Bluetooth system; the Wi-Fi station informing the Wi-Fi access point about at least one adaptive frequency hopping band in Bluetooth connection of the Wi-Fi station; and the Wi-Fi access point communicating with the Wi-Fi station using at least one frequency band selected according to the at least one adaptive frequency hopping band” in claim 1.
Similarly, the applicant argued that independent claim 8 should be allowed, since:
“As amended, Claim 8 recites, inter alia: "the Wi-Fi station selecting at least one adaptive frequency hopping band according to the at least one frequency band in Wi-Fi connection, and using the at least one adaptive frequency hopping band for Bluetooth data transmission."
“Claim 8 requires that the Wi-Fi station actively selects the Bluetooth AFH band
according to the Wi-Fi frequency band used in the Wi-Fi connection. In other words,
the Wi-Fi frequency band serves as a determinative input parameter for the Bluetooth
AFH band selection. This is a cross-system coordination mechanism operating in the
complementary direction to Claim 1: whereas Claim 1 requires the AP to select the
Wi-Fi band based on the AFH band, Claim 8 requires the station to select the AFH band
based on the Wi-Fi band.”
“LIU does not disclose the claimed AFH band selection based on the Wi-Fi
band. The Office Action maps this feature to FIG. 6 of LIU, asserting that "the 5 GHz is
established and Bluetooth data transmission is there" and that "the 5 GHz is selected
according to the at least one frequency band in Wi-Fi connection." This mapping is fundamentally flawed because it conflates two distinct concepts:
the Wi-Fi operating band and the Bluetooth AFH band. In LIU, the 5 GHz frequency
mentioned in FIG. 6 refers to a Wi-Fi connection frequency band, not a Bluetooth
adaptive frequency hopping band. The Wi-Fi operating band and the Bluetooth AFH
band are different technical concepts. The Wi-Fi operating band refers to the frequency
band used by the Wi-Fi system for data communication (e.g., 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, or 6
GHz). The Bluetooth AFH band refers to the set of frequency channels used by the
Bluetooth system during its frequency hopping process. These two are distinct and
cannot be equated. LIU does not disclose any scenario in which the Bluetooth system's AFH band is selected as a function of the Wi-Fi connection's frequency band. LIU's Wi-Fi frequency
band selection is driven by Wi-Fi system parameters, and there is no teaching or
suggestion in LIU that this Wi-Fi band information is used as an input to determine the
Bluetooth AFH band.”
“Charles likewise does not teach the required causal relationship… As discussed above, the AFH mechanism in Charles is driven by detected environmental interference,
not by a specific Wi-Fi frequency band parameter. In Charles, the Bluetooth system
detects channels affected by interference (such as WLAN signals) and excludes those
channels from the hopping sequence. The driving factor for the AFH decision in Charles is the observed interference pattern in the radio environment”
“Claim 8, by contrast, requires a more specific and deliberate coordination
mechanism: the Bluetooth AFH band is selected according to the Wi-Fi frequency band
in the Wi-Fi connection. This means the Wi-Fi band is a direct and explicit input
parameter for the AFH band selection. The distinction is significant”.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectively disagree. After reviewing the prior arts and the current claim limitations, Examiner believes that the current prior arts ( combination of LIU et al. (US 20230087282) and in view of Charles et al. ( Adaptive Frequency Hopping for Reduced Interference between Bluetooth® and Wireless LAN)).teach the limitations in independent claim 8.
Follows are reason:
The current claim limitations in independent claim 8 is quite broad. It does not reflect what applicant explained as a “requires that the Wi-Fi station actively selects the Bluetooth AFH band
according to the Wi-Fi frequency band used in the Wi-Fi connection. In other words,
the Wi-Fi frequency band serves as a determinative input parameter for the Bluetooth
AFH band selection. This is a cross-system coordination mechanism operating in the
complementary direction to Claim 1. “. The limitation is repeated here:
“linking a Wi-Fi access point (AP) to a Wi-Fi station integrated with a Bluetooth system; the Wi-Fi station accessing the Wi-Fi access point using at least one frequency band in Wi-Fi connection; and the Wi-Fi station selecting at least one adaptive frequency hopping band according to the at least one frequency band in Wi-Fi connection, and using the at least one adaptive frequency hopping band for Bluetooth data transmission”.
The combination of LIU and Charles every limitations in claim 8.
LIU teaches almost everything in claim 8 but adaptive frequency hopping band in Bluetooth.
First, LIU teaches linking a Wi-Fi access point (AP) to a Wi-Fi station integrated with a Bluetooth system in fig. 6; in which, Mobile phone is a Wi-Fi station integrated with a Bluetooth system and Router 1 is Wi-Fi access point (AP);
Second, LIU teaches the Wi-Fi station accessing the Wi-Fi access point using at least one frequency band in Wi-Fi connection in fig. 7, the 2,4 GHz or 5GHz is the one band in Wi-Fi connection of the Wi-Fi station.
Please note: fig. 7 including information exchange between the Wi-Fi station (mobile phone) and the Wi-Fi AP (router) from scanning/network selection to step 101-109, in which, when the communication has been established, Wi-Fi station informing the Wi-Fi access point about at least one band in Wi-Fi connection by default, as also suggested in paragraph 0175-0177, “… the mobile phone performs a network selection phase. In the network selection phase, the mobile phone may obtain signal strength of a corresponding Wi-Fi network based on a received probe response message, and the mobile phone may select and access, based on a specified network selection condition, one Wi-Fi network in one or more Wi-Fi networks found through scanning… for example, the mobile phone scans and displays a plurality of Wi-Fi networks as shown in FIG. 8, and the user may click the Huawei1 (a Wi-Fi network in a 5 GHz frequency band) option, to specify a network to connect to. In response to the operation performed by the user, the mobile phone may select this network in the network selection phase, and perform a subsequent access process, that is, establish a 5 GHz connection with the router 1 corresponding to the Huawei1 network”.
The applicant argued that: “The Wi-Fi operating band and the Bluetooth AFH
band are different technical concepts. The Wi-Fi operating band refers to the frequency
band used by the Wi-Fi system for data communication (e.g., 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, or 6
GHz). The Bluetooth AFH band refers to the set of frequency channels used by the
Bluetooth system during its frequency hopping process”;
However, it is well known that Bluetooth uses the 2.4 GHz band, too; and more important, in claim 9, which depends on claim 8, it explicitly explain the band of Bluetooth: as: “and the adaptive frequency hopping band is 2.4GHz, 5GHz, or 6GHz”, which is exactly the same band as Wi-Fi signal.
Third, LIU teaches the Wi-Fi station selecting at least one band according to the at least one frequency band in Wi-Fi connection, and using the at least one band for Bluetooth data transmission in fig. 6, the 5GHZ is established Bluetooth, also in fig. 10, which the 2.4 GHz is established for Bluetooth.
On the other hand, Charles discloses of what LIU lacks, that is: the adaptive frequency hopping band in Bluetooth in page 1, … a technique known as Adaptive Frequency Hopping has been introduced by the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG) to diminish the impact of such interference.
Therefore, it is obvious that to combine the technology of Charles with the teaching of LIU to achieve:
“linking a Wi-Fi access point (AP) to a Wi-Fi station integrated with a Bluetooth system; the Wi-Fi station accessing the Wi-Fi access point using at least one frequency band in Wi-Fi connection; and the Wi-Fi station selecting at least one adaptive frequency hopping band according to the at least one frequency band in Wi-Fi connection, and using the at least one adaptive frequency hopping band for Bluetooth data transmission”.
in claim 8.
The applicant argued that independent claim 15 should be allowed, since:
“Claim 15 recites a conditional power control mechanism with two essential
elements: (1) the condition of overlap between the Wi-Fi frequency band and the
Bluetooth AFH band; and (2) the consequence of reducing the Bluetooth transmission
power when this overlap condition is met. This is not a general low-power characteristic;
rather, it is a specific, event-triggered power control rule that requires overlap detection
between two distinct wireless system bands and responds to that overlap by reducing
the Bluetooth transmission power..”
“LIU and Charles do not disclose the conditional power reduction mechanism.
As discussed in Sections III and IV above, the combination of LIU and Charles fails to
establish the required cross-system coordination between Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. LIU
addresses dual Wi-Fi connection management without any teaching regarding
Bluetooth transmission power control, and Charles addresses Bluetooth AFH as a
self-contained interference avoidance mechanism without any teaching regarding
transmission power reduction based on Wi-Fi band overlap.”
“SAGAWA does not teach the claimed conditional power reduction… First, and most critically, the Office Action's reliance on SAGAWA is based on a
material translation error in the machine translation provided with the Office Action.
The relevant passage on page 7 of the translation is reproduced below: As shown above, the translation first correctly identifies the technology as "Wibre"
(a variant spelling of "Wibree"): "In addition, Wibre, which is a communication
standard derived from Bluetooth, can also be used as another transmission means."
However, in the very next sentence, the highlighted portions reveal that the translation
15 erroneously renders the same subject-Wibree-as "Wi-Fi," stating: "This Wi-Fi uses
the same 2.4 GHz band frequency as that of Bluetooth."
“Wibree is a short-range, ultra-low-power wireless communication standard
originally developed by Nokia and later merged into the Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE)
specification. Wibree is not Wi-Fi. The two technologies differ fundamentally in their
protocol architecture, transmission range, data throughput, and intended use cases.
Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11) is a high-throughput wireless local area network technology,
whereas Wibree/BLE is an ultra-low-power short-range communication protocol
derived from and closely related to Bluetooth…. Because the Office Action's mapping of SAGAWA to the claimed "Wi-Fi station
with a transmission power reduced" depends entirely on this erroneous translation of
"Wibree" as "Wi-Fi," the factual basis for the rejection is fundamentally undermined.”.
“Second, even setting aside the translation error, the cited passage of SAGAWA
describes Wibree (a short-range wireless communication standard derived from
Bluetooth), not Wi-Fi. The referenced passage discusses the inherent protocol
characteristic of Wibree, which is designed to transmit small amounts of data with
lower power consumption compared to standard Bluetooth. This is an inherent design
attribute of the Wibree protocol, not a conditional power control mechanism triggered
by any specific condition.”
“Third, SAGAWA is directed to a remote control device involving radio-to-infrared
signal conversion, solar cell power supply, and related design considerations. The
technical field of SAGAWA (remote control devices) is entirely different from the
technical field of the present application (Bluetooth/Wi-Fi coexistence band
arrangement in multi-link operation). A person of ordinary skill in the art working on
Bluetooth/Wi-Fi coexistence would not have been motivated to look to a remote control
device patent for guidance on managing transmission power between coexisting
wireless systems.
Fourth, and most importantly, Claim 15 requires a conditional power reduction:
the Bluetooth transmission power is reduced when the Wi-Fi frequency band overlaps
with the Bluetooth AFH band. This requires: (a) awareness of both the Wi-Fi frequency
band and the Bluetooth AFH band; (b) a determination of whether these two bands
overlap; and (c) a responsive action of reducing the Bluetooth transmission power upon
detecting such overlap. SAGAWA discloses none of these elements. SAGAWA's
description of Wibree's low power consumption is a static protocol characteristic, not a
dynamic, event-triggered power control rule conditioned on band overlap between two
coexisting wireless systems.”
“The distinction is significant. The present application's conditional power control mechanism is specifically tailored to the Bluetooth/Wi-Fi coexistence scenario: when
the Wi-Fi band and the Bluetooth AFH band happen to overlap (e.g., both operating in
the 2.4 GHz band), the Bluetooth transmission power is reduced to mitigate the negative
interference caused by this overlap. This represents a responsive, coordinated approach
to interference management that is absent from SAGAWA.”
Examiner’s Response:
First, if applicant believes that the translated version of the SAGAW is not correct (which is from USPTO search engine), then please give a translated version of the reference which applicant believe is correct if applicant want to justify the argument.
Second, SAGAW mentioned Wi-Fi in page 7, for example, “This Wi-Fi uses the same 2.4 GHz band frequency as that of Bluetooth, and its hardware configuration is similar to that of Bluetooth, but can transmit small data with less power consumption”, if applicant believes there is translation error in USPTO search engine, please give a translated version of the whole document which applicant believe is correct.
Third, after reviewing the prior arts and the current claim limitations, Examiner believes that the prior arts ( combination of LIU et al. (US 20230087282) and in view of Charles et al. ( Adaptive Frequency Hopping for Reduced Interference between Bluetooth® and Wireless LAN) and KO et al. (DE 102009037528)) teach the limitations in independent claim 8.
Follows are reason:
For example, KO discloses the aforementioned limitation (Bluetooth data transmission with a transmission power reduced according to the at least one frequency band in Wi-Fi connection when the at least one frequency band in Wi-Fi connection overlaps with the at least one adaptive frequency hopping band) in page 2, as:
“a modern mobile device may be equipped with more than one wireless communication service, such as a Bluetooth, WiFi- (Wireless Fidelity)… In this regard, the overlap or neighborhood of operating frequency bands among different wireless communication services causes the transmission power thereof to decrease”; the transmission power of Bluetooth data transmission is therefore decrease due to the overlap.
Therefore, the combination of LIU et al. (US 20230087282) and in view of Charles et al. ( Adaptive Frequency Hopping for Reduced Interference between Bluetooth® and Wireless LAN) and KO et al. (DE 102009037528) teaches the limitation of independent claim 15.
Applicant argued that dependent claims should be allowed due to their dependency on independent claims.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectively disagree.
As discussed above, the prior arts teaches the limitations in independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
6. Claims 1-14 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al. (US 20230087282) and in view of Charles et al. ( Adaptive Frequency Hopping for Reduced Interference between Bluetooth® and Wireless LAN).
Regarding claim 1, LIU teaches a multi-link operation (MLO) band arrangement method (fig. 7)for Bluetooth and Wi-Fi coexistence (fig. 4,Wi-Fil/2 Module and Bluetooth) , comprising:
linking a Wi-Fi access point (AP) to a Wi-Fi station integrated with a Bluetooth system (fig. 6; in which, Mobile phone is a Wi-Fi station integrated with a Bluetooth system and Router 1 is Wi-Fi access point (AP));
the Wi-Fi station informing the Wi-Fi access point about at least one band in Bluetooth connection of the Wi-Fi station (fig. 7, the 2,4 GHz or 5GHz is the one band in Bluetooth connection of the Wi-Fi station;
Please note: fig. 7 including information exchange between the Wi-Fi station (mobile phone) and the Wi-Fi AP (router) from scanning/network selection to step 101-109, in which, when the communication has been established, Wi-Fi station informing the Wi-Fi access point about at least one band in Bluetooth connection by default, as also suggested in paragraph 0175-0177, “… the mobile phone performs a network selection phase. In the network selection phase, the mobile phone may obtain signal strength of a corresponding Wi-Fi network based on a received probe response message, and the mobile phone may select and access, based on a specified network selection condition, one Wi-Fi network in one or more Wi-Fi networks found through scanning… for example, the mobile phone scans and displays a plurality of Wi-Fi networks as shown in FIG. 8, and the user may click the Huawei1 (a Wi-Fi network in a 5 GHz frequency band) option, to specify a network to connect to. In response to the operation performed by the user, the mobile phone may select this network in the network selection phase, and perform a subsequent access process, that is, establish a 5 GHz connection with the router 1 corresponding to the Huawei1 network”.) ;
and the Wi-Fi access point communicating with the Wi-Fi station using at least one frequency band selected (fig. 6, the 5GHZ is established).
It is noticed that LIU does not disclose explicitly of one adaptive frequency hopping band in Bluetooth.
Charles discloses of one adaptive frequency hopping band in Bluetooth (page 1, … a technique known as Adaptive Frequency Hopping has been introduced by the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG) to diminish the impact of such interference).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that one adaptive frequency hopping band in Bluetooth as a modification to the method for the benefit of that to reduce impact of interference (page 1).
Regarding claim 8, LIU teaches a multi-link operation (MLO) band arrangement method (fig. 7)for Bluetooth and Wi-Fi coexistence (fig. 4,Wi-Fil/2 Module and Bluetooth) , comprising:
linking a Wi-Fi access point (AP) to a Wi-Fi station integrated with a Bluetooth system (fig. 6; in which, Mobile phone is a Wi-Fi station integrated with a Bluetooth system and Router 1 is Wi-Fi access point (AP));
the Wi-Fi station accessing the Wi-Fi access point using at least one frequency band in Wi-Fi connection (fig. 7, the 2,4 GHz or 5GHz is the one band in in Wi-Fi connection) ;
and the Wi-Fi station selecting at least one band according to the at least one frequency band in Wi-Fi connection (as shown in fig. 6, the 5GHZ is selected according to the at least one frequency band in Wi-Fi connection; also in fig. 10, 5h 2.4 GHz is selected according to the at least one frequency band in Wi-Fi connection;
Please note: fig. 7 including information exchange between the Wi-Fi station (mobile phone) and the Wi-Fi AP (router) from scanning/network selection to step 101-109, in which, when the communication has been established, Wi-Fi station informing the Wi-Fi access point about at least one band in Bluetooth connection by default, as also suggested in paragraph 0175-0177, “… the mobile phone performs a network selection phase. In the network selection phase, the mobile phone may obtain signal strength of a corresponding Wi-Fi network based on a received probe response message, and the mobile phone may select and access, based on a specified network selection condition, one Wi-Fi network in one or more Wi-Fi networks found through scanning… for example, the mobile phone scans and displays a plurality of Wi-Fi networks as shown in FIG. 8, and the user may click the Huawei1 (a Wi-Fi network in a 5 GHz frequency band) option, to specify a network to connect to. In response to the operation performed by the user, the mobile phone may select this network in the network selection phase, and perform a subsequent access process, that is, establish a 5 GHz connection with the router 1 corresponding to the Huawei1 network”);
and the Wi-Fi station using at least one frequency band for Bluetooth data transmission (fig. 6, the 5GHZ is established and Bluetooth data transmission is there and also in fig. 10, 5h 2.4 GHz is established and Bluetooth data transmission is there).
It is noticed that LIU does not disclose explicitly of one adaptive frequency hopping band in Bluetooth.
Charles discloses of one adaptive frequency hopping band in Bluetooth (page 1, … a technique known as Adaptive Frequency Hopping has been introduced by the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG) to diminish the impact of such interference).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that one adaptive frequency hopping band in Bluetooth as a modification to the method for the benefit of that to reduce impact of interference (page 1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of LIU and Charles teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, LIU further discloses that the frequency band is 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz (fig. 1), or 6 GHz (paragraph 0081, … an operating range of 802.11ax devices from 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz to 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz), Charles further discloses the adaptive frequency hopping band (page 1).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of LIU and Charles teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, LIU further discloses that the Wi-Fi access point communicating with the Wi-Fi station using the at least one frequency band selected according to the at least one adaptive frequency hopping band (fig. 6, 5GHz connection) is the Wi-Fi access point communicating with the Wi-Fi station using the at least one frequency band outside the at least one adaptive frequency hopping band (fig. 7, 2.4 GHz is outside the 5GHz).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of LIU and Charles teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, LIU further discloses that linking the Wi-Fi access point (AP) to the Wi-Fi station is linking the Wi-Fi access point (AP) to the Wi-Fi station using dual band dual concurrent (DBDC) (fig. 1, Dual-band integrated router using dual band dual concurrent 2.4GHz and 5GHz).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of LIU and Charles teaches the limitations recited in claim 4 as discussed above. In addition, LIU further discloses that the Wi-Fi station communicates with other Bluetooth stations using Bluetooth in 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands (paragraph 0081, …During the evolution from 802.11a via 802.11g, 802.11n, and 802.11ac to 802.11ax, available frequency bands include 2.4 gigahertz (GHz) and 5 GHz), and the Wi-Fi access point (AP) communicates with the Wi-Fi station using Wi-Fi in 2.4 GHz and 6 GHz bands (paragraph 0081, …expanded an operating range of 802.11ax devices from 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz to 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz in the 802.11ax).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of LIU and Charles teaches the limitations recited in claim 4 as discussed above. In addition, LIU further discloses that the Wi-Fi station communicates with other Bluetooth stations using Bluetooth in 2.4 GHz and 6 GHz bands (paragraph 0081, …expanded an operating range of 802.11ax devices from 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz to 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz in the 802.11ax), and the Wi-Fi access point (AP) communicates with the Wi-Fi station using Wi-Fi in 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of LIU and Charles teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, LIU further discloses that linking the Wi-Fi access point (AP) to the Wi-Fi station is linking the Wi-Fi access point (AP) to the Wi-Fi station using triple band triple concurrent (TBTC) (paragraph 0081, …expanded an operating range of 802.11ax devices from 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz to 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz in the 802.11ax), and the Wi-Fi access point (AP) communicates with the Wi-Fi station using Wi-Fi in 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz and 6 GHz bands (paragraph 0081, …expanded an operating range of 802.11ax devices from 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz to 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz in the 802.11ax).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of LIU and Charles teaches the limitations recited in claim 8 as discussed above. In addition, LIU further discloses that the frequency band is 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz (fig. 1), or 6 GHz (paragraph 0081, … an operating range of 802.11ax devices from 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz to 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz), Charles further discloses the adaptive frequency hopping band (page 1).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 8’s rejection.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of LIU and Charles teaches the limitations recited in claim 8 as discussed above. In addition, Charles further discloses that the at least one adaptive frequency hopping band is outside the at least one frequency band (page 1, … Coexistence in the unlicensed 2.4 GHz band; which is outside of 5GHz).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 8’s rejection.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of LIU and Charles teaches the limitations recited in claim 8 as discussed above. In addition, LIU further discloses that linking the Wi-Fi access point (AP) to the Wi-Fi station is linking the Wi-Fi access point (AP) to the Wi-Fi station using dual band dual concurrent (DBDC) (fig. 1, Dual-band integrated router using dual band dual concurrent 2.4GHz and 5GHz).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of LIU and Charles teaches the limitations recited in claim 11 as discussed above. In addition, LIU further discloses that the Wi-Fi station communicates with other Bluetooth stations using Bluetooth in 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands (paragraph 0081, …During the evolution from 802.11a via 802.11g, 802.11n, and 802.11ac to 802.11ax, available frequency bands include 2.4 gigahertz (GHz) and 5 GHz), and the Wi-Fi access point (AP) communicates with the Wi-Fi station using Wi-Fi in 2.4 GHz and 6 GHz bands (paragraph 0081, …expanded an operating range of 802.11ax devices from 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz to 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz in the 802.11ax).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of LIU and Charles teaches the limitations recited in claim 11 as discussed above. In addition, LIU further discloses that the Wi-Fi station communicates with other Bluetooth stations using Bluetooth in 2.4 GHz and 6 GHz bands (paragraph 0081, …expanded an operating range of 802.11ax devices from 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz to 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz in the 802.11ax), and the Wi-Fi access point (AP) communicates with the Wi-Fi station using Wi-Fi in 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of LIU and Charles teaches the limitations recited in claim 8 as discussed above. In addition, LIU further discloses that linking the Wi-Fi access point (AP) to the Wi-Fi station is linking the Wi-Fi access point (AP) to the Wi-Fi station using triple band triple concurrent (TBTC) (paragraph 0081, …expanded an operating range of 802.11ax devices from 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz to 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz in the 802.11ax), and the Wi-Fi access point (AP) communicates with the Wi-Fi station using Wi-Fi in 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz and 6 GHz bands (paragraph 0081, …expanded an operating range of 802.11ax devices from 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz to 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz in the 802.11ax).
7. Claims 15-20 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al. (US 20230087282) and in view of Charles et al. ( Adaptive Frequency Hopping for Reduced Interference between Bluetooth® and Wireless LAN) and further in view of KO et al. (DE 102009037528) .
Regarding claim 15, LIU teaches a multi-link operation (MLO) band arrangement method (fig. 7) for Bluetooth and Wi-Fi coexistence (fig. 4,Wi-Fil/2 Module and Bluetooth) , comprising:
linking a Wi-Fi access point (AP) to a Wi-Fi station integrated with a Bluetooth system (fig. 6; in which, Mobile phone is a Wi-Fi station integrated with a Bluetooth system and Router 1 is Wi-Fi access point (AP));
the Wi-Fi station accessing the Wi-Fi access point using at least one frequency band in Wi-Fi connection (fig. 7, the 2,4 GHz or 5GHz is the one band in Wi-Fi connection) ;
and the Wi-Fi station using at least one frequency band for Bluetooth data transmission according to the at least one frequency band in Wi-Fi connection (fig. 6, the 5GHZ is established and it is frequency band for Bluetooth data transmission according to the at least one frequency band in Wi-Fi connection; also in fig. 10, the 2.4 GHz is used for Bluetooth data transmission;
Please note: fig. 7 including information exchange between the Wi-Fi station (mobile phone) and the Wi-Fi AP (router) from scanning/network selection to step 101-109, in which, when the communication has been established, Wi-Fi station informing the Wi-Fi access point about at least one band in Bluetooth connection by default, as also suggested in paragraph 0175-0177, “… the mobile phone performs a network selection phase. In the network selection phase, the mobile phone may obtain signal strength of a corresponding Wi-Fi network based on a received probe response message, and the mobile phone may select and access, based on a specified network selection condition, one Wi-Fi network in one or more Wi-Fi networks found through scanning… for example, the mobile phone scans and displays a plurality of Wi-Fi networks as shown in FIG. 8, and the user may click the Huawei1 (a Wi-Fi network in a 5 GHz frequency band) option, to specify a network to connect to. In response to the operation performed by the user, the mobile phone may select this network in the network selection phase, and perform a subsequent access process, that is, establish a 5 GHz connection with the router 1 corresponding to the Huawei1 network”.).
It is noticed that LIU does not disclose explicitly of one adaptive frequency hopping band in Bluetooth.
Charles discloses of one adaptive frequency hopping band in Bluetooth (page 1, … a technique known as Adaptive Frequency Hopping has been introduced by the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG) to diminish the impact of such interference).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that one adaptive frequency hopping band in Bluetooth as a modification to the method for the benefit of that to reduce impact of interference (page 1).
It is noticed that LIU does not disclose explicitly of Bluetooth data transmission with a transmission power reduced according to the at least one frequency band in Wi-Fi connection when the at least one frequency band in Wi-Fi connection overlaps with the at least one band .
KO discloses of Bluetooth data transmission with a transmission power reduced according to the at least one frequency band in Wi-Fi connection when the at least one frequency band in Wi-Fi connection overlaps with the at least one band (page 2, a modern mobile device may be equipped with more than one wireless communication service, such as a Bluetooth, WiFi- (Wireless Fidelity)… In this regard, the overlap or neighborhood of operating frequency bands among different wireless communication services causes the transmission power thereof to decrease; therefore, the Bluetooth data transmission power is reduced according to the at least one frequency band in Wi-Fi connection when the at least one frequency band in Wi-Fi connection overlaps with the at least one band).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that Bluetooth data transmission with a transmission power reduced according to the at least one frequency band in Wi-Fi connection when the at least one frequency band in Wi-Fi connection overlaps with the at least one band as a modification to the method for the benefit of that to reduce impact of interference and save power (page 2).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of LIU, Charles and KO teaches the limitations recited in claim 15 as discussed above. In addition, LIU further discloses that the frequency band is 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz (fig. 1), or 6 GHz (paragraph 0081, … an operating range of 802.11ax devices from 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz to 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz), Charles further discloses the adaptive frequency hopping band (page 1).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 15’s rejection.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of LIU, Charles and KO teaches the limitations recited in claim 15 as discussed above. In addition, LIU further discloses that linking the Wi-Fi access point (AP) to the Wi-Fi station is linking the Wi-Fi access point (AP) to the Wi-Fi station using dual band dual concurrent (DBDC) (fig. 1, Dual-band integrated router using dual band dual concurrent 2.4GHz and 5GHz).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of LIU, Charles and KO teaches the limitations recited in claim 17 as discussed above. In addition, LIU further discloses that the Wi-Fi station communicates with other Bluetooth stations using Bluetooth in 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands (paragraph 0081, …During the evolution from 802.11a via 802.11g, 802.11n, and 802.11ac to 802.11ax, available frequency bands include 2.4 gigahertz (GHz) and 5 GHz), and the Wi-Fi access point (AP) communicates with the Wi-Fi station using Wi-Fi in 2.4 GHz and 6 GHz bands (paragraph 0081, …expanded an operating range of 802.11ax devices from 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz to 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz in the 802.11ax).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of LIU, Charles and KO teaches the limitations recited in claim 17 as discussed above. In addition, LIU further discloses that the Wi-Fi station communicates with other Bluetooth stations using Bluetooth in 2.4 GHz and 6 GHz bands (paragraph 0081, …expanded an operating range of 802.11ax devices from 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz to 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz in the 802.11ax), and the Wi-Fi access point (AP) communicates with the Wi-Fi station using Wi-Fi in 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of LIU, Charles and KO teaches the limitations recited in claim 15 as discussed above. In addition, LIU further discloses that linking the Wi-Fi access point (AP) to the Wi-Fi station is linking the Wi-Fi access point (AP) to the Wi-Fi station using triple band triple concurrent (TBTC) (paragraph 0081, …expanded an operating range of 802.11ax devices from 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz to 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz in the 802.11ax), and the Wi-Fi access point (AP) communicates with the Wi-Fi station using Wi-Fi in 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz and 6 GHz bands (paragraph 0081, …expanded an operating range of 802.11ax devices from 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz to 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz in the 802.11ax).
11. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
12 . Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAIHAN JIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1399. The examiner can normally be reached on flexible.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sath Perungavoor can be reached on (571)272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-0655.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZAIHAN JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights