DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 03/27/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 10, and 16 have been amended.
Objection to claim 3 is withdrawn since it has been amended accordingly.
Rejection to claims under 35 USC § 112 is withdrawn since it has been amended accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the arguments on the amended feature has been addressed in the instant Office Action with previously identified prior art by mapping the relevant teachings for more clarification thereof that read on said added feature are moot.
(i) Applicant asserted that, in the Argument dated 03/27/2026, page 6:
Ghosh's description of using Bluetooth schedule information to update a Wi-Fi puncturing schedule does not disclose the generation of a hopping pattern based on identified unused subchannels received via a bi-directional interface. The Office Action relies on portions of Ghosh that describe preamble puncturing used by a Wi-Fi module. While Ghosh describes some aspects of preamble puncturing associated with a Wi-Fi module, Applicant submits that such a general description as provided by, for example, paragraph 0048 of Ghosh, does not disclose the generation of a hopping pattern based on a received data structure including an identification of unused subchannels. For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that Ghosh does not disclose the generation of a data structure identifying an unused plurality of sub-channels of the first transceiver, and "generating, using the one or more processing elements, a hopping pattern for the second transceiver based, at least in part, on the data structure received via a bidirectional interface coupled to at least the first transceiver and the second transceiver", as currently claimed.
Moreover, Applicant notes that the Office Action makes reference to paragraph 0040 of Ghosh which generally describes frequency hopping and states that "Bluetooth Adaptive Frequency Hopping (AFH) is applicable for data or audio connections, Bluetooth uses adaptive frequency hopping to select usable channels, e.g., in the 2.4 GHz band." However, the referenced portion of Ghosh merely describes what adaptive frequency hopping is, and does not disclose generation of such a hopping pattern based on identified unused subchannels received in a data structure from another transceiver, as noted above.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s piecemeal interpretation of the prior art. Applicant’s argument relies on isolating paragraph [0040] from the rest of the disclosure. When Ghosh is read as a whole-particularly combining the foundation of AFH in paragraph [0040] with the explicit bi-directional inter-module communication detailed in paragraphs [0054], [0055], [0060] and [0088] -it is clear that Ghosh teaches the exact sequence of steps claimed, without any conflation of the transceivers’ roles.
While para [0048] of Ghosh describes the spatial and spectral characteristics of the punctured channel from the Wi-Fi perspective, Ghosh explicitly connects this puncture information to the dynamic generation/modification of the Bluetooth hopping sequence in subsequent paragraphs (specifically para [0054] and [0055] of Ghosh). A prior art reference must be read as a whole by a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA).
Applicant state that para [0048] does not disclose the claimed features. However, para [0048] is cited to show the identification of the unused sub-channels by the first transceiver (Wi-Fi). It explicitly states:
“…assuming Bluetooth operation is in one of the 2 MHz channel within the punctured 20 MHz channel bandwidth. The figure also depicts that the Wi-Fi signal still spans over the primary 20 MHz channel and the secondary 40 MHz channel, while coexisting with Bluetooth in the intermediate secondary channel.”
This teaches that the Wi-Fi module identifies specific portions of its spectrum (the intermediate secondary channel) as “punctured” and therefore unused by the Wi-Fi signal, which matches the claimed “puncture pattern identifying an unused plurality of sub-channels of the first transceiver.”
Applicant argues that Ghosh does not disclose a “received data structure” containing this identification. However, para [0054] of Ghosh explicitly states that “Spectral usage in 2.4 GHz and any other band may also be shared using this non-real time interface” between the co-located modules, and para [0055] specifies that “the Wi-Fi module sends schedule information to the Bluetooth module.” The “spectral usage” and “schedule information” sent by the Wi-Fi module in Ghosh is precisely the information regarding which 20 MHz channels are punctured/unused (as defined in para [0048]). To communicate this complex frequency/time availability data between two digital processing components over a non-real-time digital interface, it would be inherent, or at least entirely obvious to a PHOSITA, to format this information into a standard digital “data structure” (e.g., a packet, register array, or bitmask).
Furthermore, Ghosh explicitly teaches, in paragraphs [0055], a co-existence mechanism involving a real-time and non-real-time interface where “when the Bluetooth module sends schedule information to the Wi-Fi module of the device via the non-real time interface. …when the Wi-Fi module sends schedule information to the Bluetooth module …” This constitutes a bi-directional interface capable of sharing info between the Bluetooth module and the Wi-Fi module.
Finally, Applicant claims Ghosh lacks the generation of a hopping pattern based on the received data. This is directly rebutted by para [0055] of Ghosh, which explicitly discloses the exact technical effect and response required by Claim 1: “In some embodiments, alternatively or additionally, when the Wi-Fi module sends schedule information to the Bluetooth module, the Bluetooth module may look to update hopping sequence of its existing connections.”
Updating a hopping sequence so that the Bluetooth module can successfully schedule its transmissions within the specific 1 MHz or 2 MHz channels inside the Wi-Fi’s punctured 20 MHz band (as disclosed in paragraphs [0060] and [0088] of Ghosh)(para[0060]: In some embodiments, the bandwidth of the sub-channel for the Bluetooth communication is 2 MHz (26 tone-Resource Unite (RU)). In some embodiments, in order to prevent spectral leakage, the Wi-Fi module may also puncture a 4 MHz (52 tone-RU) channel, providing a guard band of 1 MHz on either side of the 2 MHz channel bandwidth…) (para [0088]: …the Bluetooth module may share its event schedule (bandwidth in granularity of 1 MHz or 2 MHz, start times, and transmission duration) with Wi-Fi module, so as to as puncturing in the overlapping secondary 20 MHz channel bandwidth (for example in 2.4 GHz channel) by a Wi-Fi 6 or future Wi-Fi device, when a Bluetooth transmission is expected in any 1 MHz or 2 MHz channel bandwidth within the secondary 20 MHz bandwidth…) is the exact functional equivalent of “generating … a hopping pattern for the second transceiver based, at least in part, on the data structure … including at least some of the plurality of sub-channels identified by the puncture pattern” as recited in Claim 1.H
Therefore, the feature “generating, using the one or more processing elements, a hopping pattern for the second transceiver based, at least in part, on the data structure received via a bidirectional interface coupled to at least the first transceiver and the second transceiver” of amended Claim 1 are fully anticipated.
(ii) Applicant asserted that, in the Argument dated 03/27/2026, pages 6-7:
Further still, the referenced portion of Ghosh is described with respect to the Bluetooth transceiver which appears to be mapped to the first transceiver in the Office Action. (See Office Action, page 5). Accordingly, such a description is being made with reference to the Bluetooth module schedule information. Applicant submits that the referenced portion of Ghosh is not cited for the second transceiver and appears to conflate operations associated with first and second transceivers, and the Office Action has not shown how such a disclosure would allegedly disclose generation of a hopping pattern for the Wi-Fi transceiver based on such information and in a manner consistent with the feature mapping used in the rest of the Office Action, and also in a manner that does not conflate a hopping pattern and a puncture pattern. For these additional reasons, the referenced portion of Ghosh does not disclose the generation of a hopping pattern based on a received data structure that includes an identification of unused sub-channels.
To eliminate any ambiguity, the Examiner clarifies the consistent feature mapping between Claim 1 and Ghosh as follows:
First Transceiver (Claim 1) → Wi-Fi Module (Ghosh)
Second Transceiver (Claim 1) → Bluetooth Module (Ghosh)
Under this consistent mapping, Ghosh discloses the claimed operations in the exact causal direction required by Claim 1.
The Office Action does not conflate a hopping pattern with a puncture pattern. Ghosh clearly assigns the puncture pattern (preamble puncturing schedule) to the Wi-Fi module (First Transceiver) to mark its unused spectrum. Ghosh clearly assigns the hopping pattern (updated AFH sequence) to the Bluetooth module (Second Transceiver) to map its active sequence into that exact marked spectrum.
The fact that the Bluetooth module’s hopping pattern is dynamically adjusted to overlap with and utilize the Wi-Fi module’s unused (punctured) sub-channels does not mean the two patterns are conflated; rather, it represents the exact functional interdependence recited in Applicant’s Claim 1 (“the hopping pattern including at least some of the plurality of sub-channels identified by the puncture pattern”).
Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments overall are deemed unpersuasive, and the previous rejections are hereby maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10, and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ghosh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210204140, hereinafter “Ghosh”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Ghosh unless otherwise mentioned.
Ghosh discloses “Apparatus and method for coexistence between wi-fi communication and Bluetooth communication” and comprises the following features:
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim 1, A method comprising: Ghosh teaches:
identifying, using one or more processing elements, wireless activity associated with a first transceiver (Fig. 6 and para [0047]: FIG. 6 illustrates an example of a punctured 20 MHz channel in different configurations of 80 MHz channel bandwidth. As shown in FIG. 6, preamble puncturing in 80 MHz is depicted with secondary 20 MHz channel (S20), lower (left) secondary 40 MHz channel (S40-L) and upper (right) secondary 40 MHz channel (S40-R) punctured respectively.) (para [0048]: As shown in FIG. 6, an intermediate 20 MHz is punctured, assuming Bluetooth operation is in one of the 2 MHz channel within the punctured 20 MHz channel bandwidth. The figure also depicts that the Wi-Fi signal still spans over the primary 20 MHz channel and the secondary 40 MHz channel, while coexisting with Bluetooth in the intermediate secondary channel.) (para [0049]: The disclosure provides a mechanism for a Bluetooth module to inform a Wi-Fi module about its frequency usage pattern, either in short-term or long-term. On the availability of the usage pattern as indicated in the above critical three use cases, the Wi-Fi module (interpreted as “a first transceiver”) may use preamble puncturing to implement coexistence between the Wi-Fi communication and a Bluetooth communication when operating in 2.4 GHz band or even in future operating in 5 GHz, 6 GHz bands or the like. Further to preamble puncturing, puncturing is designed in granularity of sub-multiples (for example, 26 tones/2 MHz or 52 tones/4 MHz) of 20 MHz (interpreted as “identifying, using one or more processing elements, wireless activity associated with a first transceiver”), the first transceiver being collocated with a second transceiver (para [0053]: Combo Wi-Fi module (interpreted as “a first transceiver”) and Bluetooth module (interpreted as “a second transceiver”) of a device (e.g., a UE) may implement a coexistence mechanism to optimally schedule respective RF transmission and reception.) (Fig. 12 and para [0093]: the processing circuitry 1206 (interpreted as “one or more processing elements”) may be configured to perform operations detailed in the above figures, diagrams, and flows.);
generating, using the one or more processing elements, a data structure including a puncture pattern for the first transceiver based, at least in part, on the identified wireless activity, the data structure storing a representation of the puncture pattern identifying an unused plurality of sub-channels of the first transceiver (para [0054]: It may be advantageous to inform the collocated Wi-Fi module a little ahead in time about the traffic schedule of the Bluetooth module using the non-real time interface, so that the collocated Wi-Fi module can make use of the non-real time scheduling information to reserve or adjust usage of frequency and time resources with link layer or MAC protocol messaging) (para [0055]: when the Bluetooth module sends schedule information to the Wi-Fi module of the device via the non-real time interface, the Wi-Fi module of the device needs time to update its puncturing schedule with the Wi-Fi AP that is connected with the device. … when the Wi-Fi module sends schedule information to the Bluetooth module, the Bluetooth module may look to update hopping sequence of its existing connections.) (Examiner’s note: The ‘schedule information’ sent from the Wi-Fi is interpreted as “a data structure including a puncture pattern for the first transceiver … the data structure storing a representation of the puncture pattern identifying an unused plurality of sub-channels of the first transceiver”. The operation of making and updating the puncturing schedule discussed in paragraphs [0054-0055] corresponds to the claimed limitation “generating, using the one or more processing elements, a puncture pattern for the first transceiver based, at least in part, on the identified wireless activity”. The ‘usage of frequency and time resources’ discussed in para [0054] is interpreted as “a representation of the puncture pattern identifying an unused plurality of sub-channels of the first transceiver.” Para [0054] of Ghosh explicitly states that “Spectral usage in 2.4 GHz and any other band may also be shared using this non-real time interface” between the co-located modules, and para [0055] specifies that “the Wi-Fi module sends schedule information to the Bluetooth module.” The “spectral usage” and “schedule information” sent by the Wi-Fi module in Ghosh is precisely the information regarding which 20 MHz channels are punctured/unused (as defined in para [0048]). As previously established, communicating spectral usage or schedule information over a non-real-time interface inherently involves a formatted “data structure.”); and
generating, using the one or more processing elements, a hopping pattern for the second transceiver based, at least in part, on the data structure received at via a bidirectional interface coupled to at least the first transceiver and the second transceiver, the hopping pattern identifying a sequence of sub-channels used by the second transceiver for wireless activity, and the hopping pattern including at least some of the plurality of sub-channels identified by the puncture pattern (para [0055]: In some embodiments, when the Bluetooth module sends schedule information to the Wi-Fi module of the device via the non-real time interface (interpreted as “via a bidirectional interface coupled to at least the first transceiver and the second transceiver”) … In some embodiments, alternatively or additionally, when the Wi-Fi module sends schedule information (interpreted as “the data structure received at via a bidirectional interface…”) to the Bluetooth module, the Bluetooth module may look to update hopping sequence of its existing connections (interpreted as “generating … a hopping pattern for the second transceiver based, at least in part, on the data structure …, the hopping pattern identifying a sequence of sub-channels used by the second transceiver for wireless activity, and the hopping pattern including at least some of the plurality of sub-channels identified by the puncture pattern.” The hopping sequence of its existing connections is interpreted as “the hopping pattern identifying a sequence of sub-channels used by the second transceiver for wireless activity”). Thus, the ahead time period may be determined, alternatively or additionally, based on the time required for updating hopping sequence. For example, the updating of hopping sequence of existing connections would take 6 times the Connection Interval used on those connections, thus the ahead time period may be 100 ms or more, for example.) (para [0060]: In some embodiments, the bandwidth of the sub-channel for the Bluetooth communication is 2 MHz (26 tone-Resource Unite (RU)). In some embodiments, in order to prevent spectral leakage, the Wi-Fi module may also puncture a 4 MHz (52 tone-RU) channel, providing a guard band of 1 MHz on either side of the 2 MHz channel bandwidth (interpreted as “the hopping pattern including at least some of the plurality of sub-channels identified by the puncture pattern”).) (para [0088]: …the Bluetooth module may share its event schedule (bandwidth in granularity of 1 MHz or 2 MHz, start times, and transmission duration) with Wi-Fi module, so as to as puncturing in the overlapping secondary 20 MHz channel bandwidth (for example in 2.4 GHz channel) by a Wi-Fi 6 or future Wi-Fi device, when a Bluetooth transmission is expected in any 1 MHz or 2 MHz channel bandwidth within the secondary 20 MHz bandwidth…))
Regarding claim 10, it is a system claim corresponding to the method claim 1, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, it is a device claim corresponding to the method claim 1, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim 2, Ghosh teaches The method of claim 1, Ghosh further teaches wherein the first transceiver is a Wi-Fi transceiver, and wherein the second transceiver is a Bluetooth transceiver, an 802.15.4 transceiver, or a narrowband internet-of-things transceiver (para [0053]: Combo Wi-Fi module (interpreted as “a first transceiver”) and Bluetooth module (interpreted as “a second transceiver”) of a device (e.g., a UE) may implement a coexistence mechanism to optimally schedule respective RF transmission and reception.).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 5-9, 11, 13-15, 17, and 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosh in view of Sun et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220376824, hereinafter “Sun”).
Regarding claim 3, Ghosh teachｅｓ The method of claim 1, wherein the generating of the puncture pattern comprises:
Ghosh fails to specifically teach generating a bitmap data structure identifying the unused plurality of sub-channels.
In analogous art, Sun teaches “generating a bitmap data structure identifying the unused plurality of sub-channels” (Fig. 8C and para [0116] of Sun: the bitmap 820 having index 13 shown as [xxx11111] indicates that the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd 40 MHz subchannels (interpreted as “unused plurality of sub-channels”) of the 320 MHz bandwidth are punctured (thereby resulting in a contiguous 120 MHz punctured subchannel).
Ghosh and Sun are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of puncturing-based communication in Wireless Lan System. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Ghosh's method by incorporating the features of Sun in order to provide a bitmap data structure identifying the unused plurality of sub-channels for wireless transmissions. The rationale for doing so would have been to allow the transmission and reception on AFH channels to be protected in densely used Wi-Fi environments (see para [0087] of Ghosh).
Regarding claim 5, Ghosh and Sun teach The method of claim 3,
Sun further teaches:
wherein the bitmap data structure is encoded (para [0142] of Sun: the STA 1404 decodes the bitmap, obtains the first puncturing pattern (interpreted as “the bitmap data structure is encoded”))
Regarding claim 6, Ghosh and Sun teach The method of claim 3,
Sun further teaches:
wherein the bitmap data structure is included in a data packet (para [0141] of Sun: The AP 1402 sends an indication of the first puncturing pattern over the wireless channel 1405 to the STA 1404. The indication may be a bitmap including a plurality of bits (the indication transmitted from AP 1402 is interpreted as “a data packet”), where each bit of the bitmap indicates whether a corresponding subchannel of the wireless channel 1405 is punctured (or not punctured)) (para [0153] of Sun: In this case, the AP 1402 may use the single bit to explicitly indicate which of the candidate puncturing patterns has been selected as the second puncturing pattern. The bitmap or bit may be carried in an EHT operation element of a beacon frame, an association response frame, a probe response frame, an action frame, or another suitable frame or packet. In other instances, the bitmap may be carried in another portion of a frame.).
Regarding claim 7, Ghosh teaches The method of claim 1,
Ghosh fails to specifically teach the wherein the unused plurality of sub-channels is noncontiguous.
In analogous art, Sun teaches
the wherein the unused plurality of sub-channels is noncontiguous (Figs. 8, 13b and para [0116] of Sun: the bitmap 820 having index 14 shown as [xx1x1111] indicates that the 1st, 2nd, and 4th 40 MHz subchannels (interpreted as “unused plurality of sub-channels is noncontiguous”) of the 320 MHz bandwidth are punctured) (also see index 14 in Fig. 13b of Sun). Fig. 13b of Sun is reproduced herein below.
PNG
media_image1.png
578
892
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 13B of Sun)
Regarding claim 8, Ghosh teaches The method of claim 1,
Ghosh fails to specifically teach wherein the unused plurality of sub-channels comprises a plurality of portions of contiguous sub-channels.
Sun teaches:
wherein the unused plurality of sub-channels comprises a plurality of portions of contiguous sub-channels (see index 14 (“[xxxx11xx11111111]”) in Fig. 13c of Sun).
Examiner’s note: In Fig. 13c of Sun, a plurality of portions of contiguous sub-channels (1st portion is “xxxx (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th)”, and 2nd portion is “xx (7th and 8th)” in index 14) are punctured).
Regarding claim 9, Ghosh and Sun teach The method of claim 8,
Sun further teaches wherein the plurality of portions of contiguous sub-channels has different sizes Sun teaches the a plurality of portions of contiguous sub-channels (see index 14 (“[xxxx11xx11111111]”) in Fig. 13c of Sun).
Examiner’s note: In Fig. 13c of Sun, the plurality of portions of contiguous sub-channels (1st portion is “xxxx (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th)”, and 2nd portion is “xx (7th and 8th)” in index 14) has different sizes).
Regarding claim 11, Claim 11 has similar limitation as of Claim 3, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, Claim 13 has similar limitation as of Claim 5, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, Claim 14 has similar limitation as of Claim 7, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, Claim 15 has similar limitation as of Claim 9, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim 9.
Regarding claim 17, Claim 17 has similar limitation as of Claim 3, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, Claim 19 has similar limitation as of Claim 7, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, Claim 20 has similar limitation as of Claim 9, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim 9.
Claim(s) 4, 12, and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosh in view of Sun, and further in view of Park et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20250219764, hereinafter “Park”).
Regarding claim 4, Ghosh and Sun teach The method of claim 3 further comprising: Ghosh and Sun fail to teach
transmitting the bitmap data structure from the first transceiver to the second transceiver.
In analogous art, Park teaches the transmitting the bitmap data structure from the first transceiver to the second transceiver (para [0053] of Park: LAN is an independent BSS (IBSS). … BSS1 containing only STA1 (interpreted as “first transceiver”) and STA2 (Examiner’s note: STA 2 is interpreted as the “second transceiver” collocated with the first transceiver because both STA1and STA2 are co-located within the AP’s coverage area (BSS1) and communicate by sharing the same wireless communication resources. See Fig. 2 and para [0051] of Park ) (para [0213] of Park: When OFDMA transmission method is applied/set, 80 MHz puncturing pattern may be indicated in bitmap manner through 4 bits of 5-bit punctured channel information field.) (para [0219] of Park: A first STA may generate a Physical layer Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) including a first U (universal)-signal (SIG) field related to a first bandwidth and a second U-SIG field related to a second bandwidth (S1510).)(para [0222] of Park: The first U-SIG field may include a first punctured channel information field indicating a first puncturing pattern among a plurality of puncturing patterns corresponding to the first bandwidth.)(para [0223] of Park: The second U-SIG field may include a second punctured channel information field indicating first and second puncturing patterns among a plurality of puncturing patterns corresponding to the second bandwidth.) (para [0233]: The first STA may transmit a PPDU including a first U-SIG field and a second U-SIG field to the second STA).
Ghosh, Sun, and Park are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of puncturing-based communication in Wireless Lan System. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify the combination of Ghosh and Sun by incorporating the features of Park in order to transmit the bitmap data structure of a puncturing pattern from the first transceiver to second transceiver. The rationale for doing so would have been to allow the transmission and reception on AFH channels to be protected in densely used Wi-Fi environments (see para [0087] of Ghosh).
Regarding claim 12, Claim 12 has similar limitation as of Claim 4, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, Claim 18 has similar limitation as of Claim 4, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim 4.
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 WON JUN CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1695. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 08:00 - 17:00.
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, Derrick W Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/WON JUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights