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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-10 and 18-27 in the reply filed on March 31, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-17 and 28-30 have been cancelled and new claims 31-40 have been added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 6, 10, 20, 23, 27, 32, 35, 37 and 40are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 3, 6, 10, 20, 23, 27, 35 and 40, the limitation "satisfying a threshold” is a relative term which render the claim indefinite as it lacks comparative direction (e.g., greater than, less than or equal). The term “satisfying a threshold” is not defined by the claim. The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 32 and 37 are rejected as being dependent of rejected claim(s).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC§ 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5. 6, 18-20, 22, 23, 31-34 and 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegardoost et al(US 2021/0105812 A1) hereinafter referred as Ras ‘812 in view of Lee(US 2007/0147236 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Ras ‘812 teaches, an apparatus for wireless communication at a transmitter ([0201]-[0207] and Fig. 15, wireless device 1502), comprising: one or more antennas([0201]-[0207] and Fig. 15, wireless device 1502 comprising plurality of antennas) ; and a processing system that includes one or more processors, and one or more memories that store code for the one or more processors, the processing system configured to cause the transmitter to([0201]-[0207] and Fig. 15, wireless device 1502 comprising processing system 1518 and memory 1524):
monitor a clear channel assessment (CCA) for a primary bandwidth associated with the transmitter ([0218], [0415], UE performing Listen-Before Talk (LBT) procedures which includes CCAs on a first subband/bandwidth); monitor one or more additional CCAs for one or more secondary bandwidths associated with the transmitter ([0218], [0349], [0417], UE performing parallel LBT procedures on two or more subbands or a wideband BWP that includes multiple subbands); and
determine whether an interferer is located within at least one bandwidth, of the one or more secondary bandwidths, based at least in part on tracking packet transmissions within the one or more secondary bandwidths, wherein the packet transmissions are based at least in part on the one or more additional CCAs([0417]-[0419] and Figs. 19, 23, the UE evaluating whether the second subband is clear of interferes by comparing its LBT failure counter against other subbands. By tracking which subbands have fewer failures (i.e. tracking the successful packet transmissions resulting from successful LBTs) the device determines where to transmit to avoid the interferer).
Ras ‘812 does not explicitly teach, determine whether an interferer is located within the primary bandwidth based at least in part on tracking packet drops within the primary bandwidth, wherein the packet drops are based at least in part on the CCA.
Lee ‘236 teaches, determine whether an interferer is located within the primary bandwidth based at least in part on tracking packet drops within the primary bandwidth, wherein the packet drops are based at least in part on the CCA ([0043]-[0045], [0046] and Fig. 5, performing CCA before attempting to transmit any of the packets, and the host MAC computes a Packet Drop Rate(PDR) from received and transmitted packets on specific channel(bandwidth) to detect interference. The host determines an interferer is present within a specific channel by comparing the actual PDR against predicted Average Packet Drop Rate (APDR)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Ras ‘812, by incorporating the teaching of Lee ‘236, since such modification would enable to effectively mitigate interferences among a number of UWB networks whose physical spaces are overlapping each other, as suggested by Lee ‘236([0022]).
Regarding claims 2 and 19, the combination of Ras ‘812 and Lee ‘236 teaches all of the claim limitations, Ras ‘812 further teaches, wherein the processing system, to monitor the CCA for the primary bandwidth, is configured to cause the transmitter to measure radio frequency energy levels at multiple points in time([0234]-[0238], [0415] and Fig. 18, performing LBT procedure by detecting energy at multiple times spaced a part by timer).
Regarding claims 3 and 20, the combination of Ras ‘812 and Lee ‘236 teaches all of the claim limitations, Lee ‘236 further teaches, wherein the interferer is determined to be located within the primary bandwidth based at least in part on a quantity of consecutive packet drops satisfying a threshold( [0044], [0064] and Fig. 5, determining the presence of an interferer on the current operating channel (the primary bandwidth) by comparing the PDR( which may include the consecutive packet drops) with APDR).
Regarding claims 5 and 22, the combination of Ras ‘812 and Lee ‘236 teaches all of the claim limitations, Lee ‘236 further teaches, wherein the interferer is determined to be located within the one or more secondary bandwidths based at least in part on detecting a signature indicating consistent bandwidth drop in the packet transmissions([0050], [0057], claim 1 and Figs. 3-4, determining which specific-carriers(secondary bandwidth) an interferer occupies by transmitting packets with specific programmed payload data patterns. And by analyzing the resulting error patterns identifying the exact sub-barriers occupied by the existing services(interferers)).
Regarding claims 6 and 23, the combination of Ras ‘812 and Lee ‘236 teaches all of the claim limitations, Lee ‘236 further teaches, wherein the interferer is determined to be located within the one or more secondary bandwidths based at least in part on a quantity of consecutive packet transmissions that exclude the at least one bandwidth, of the one or more secondary bandwidths, satisfying a threshold( [0044], [0050], [0064] and Fig. 5, locating an interferer within specific sub-carriers(secondary bandwidth) by tracking packet transmissions across all channels and logging the error rates and by evaluating the error patterns of these transmission against the PDR threshold excluding specific sub-carriers that are occupied by interferer).
Regarding claims 31 and 36, the combination of Ras ‘812 and Lee ‘236 teaches all of the claim limitations, Ras ‘812 further teaches, wherein the processing system is configured to cause the transmitter to perform CCA based at least in part on the measured radio frequency energy level([0234]-[0238], [0415] and Fig. 18, performing LBT procedure by detecting energy level at multiple times spaced a part by timer).
Regarding claims 32 and 37, the combination of Ras ‘812 and Lee ‘236 teaches all of the claim limitations, Lee ‘236 further teaches, wherein the processing system, to determine whether the interferer is located within the primary bandwidth, is configured to cause the transmitter to maintain a counter that increments when a packet is dropped ( [0044], [0064] and Fig. 5, determining the presence of an interferer on the current operating channel (the primary bandwidth) by comparing the count/quantity of PDR with APDR).
Regarding claims 33 and 38, the combination of Ras ‘812 and Lee ‘236 teaches all of the claim limitations, Ras ‘812 further teaches, wherein the processing system, to determine whether the interferer is located within the primary bandwidth, is configured to cause the transmitter to apply a moving window detector at least partially within the primary bandwidth ([0234]-[0238], [0415] and Fig. 18, performing multiple LBTs within a predetermined time(window) ).
Regarding claims 34 and 39, the combination of Ras ‘812 and Lee ‘236 teaches all of the claim limitations, Ras ‘812 further teaches, wherein the processing system, to determine whether the interferer is located within the one or more secondary bandwidths, is configured to cause the transmitter to apply a moving window detector at least partially within the one or more secondary bandwidth([0218], [0349], [0417], UE performing parallel LBT procedures on two or more subbands within predetermined time(window)).
Claims 4, 8, 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ras ‘812 and Lee ‘236 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Ho et al(US 2015/0085699 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 21, the combination of Ras ‘812 and Lee ‘236 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the interferer is determined to be located within the primary bandwidth further based at least in part on a spectral scan.
Ho ‘699 teaches, wherein the interferer is determined to be located within the primary bandwidth further based at least in part on a spectral scan ([0046] and Fig. 3, channel conditions can be determined through spectral scans. Spectral scans can determine whether wireless frequencies are busy, noisy or if they contain interferers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined communication system of Ras ‘812 and Lee ‘236, by incorporating the teaching of Ho ‘699, since such modification would provide enhanced wireless network coverage within a defined coverage area, as suggested by Ho ‘699([0002]-[0003]).
Regarding claims 8 and 25, the combination of Ras ‘812 and Lee ‘236 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the interferer is determined to be located within the one or more secondary bandwidths further based at least in part on a spectral scan.
Ho ‘699 teaches, wherein the interferer is determined to be located within the one or more secondary bandwidths further based at least in part on a spectral scan( [0046] and Fig. 3, channel conditions can be determined through spectral scans. Spectral scans can determine whether wireless frequencies are busy, noisy or if they contain interferers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined communication system of Ras ‘812 and Lee ‘236, by incorporating the teaching of Ho ‘699, since such modification would provide enhanced wireless network coverage within a defined coverage area, as suggested by Ho ‘699([0002]-[0003]).
Claims 7 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ras ‘812 and Lee ‘236 as applied to claim above, and further in view of Zhang et al(US 2009/0311973 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 24, the combination of Ras ‘812 and Lee ‘236 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the processing system, to track the packet transmissions, is configured to cause the transmitter to use a finite state machine to model the packet transmissions.
Zhang ‘973 teaches, wherein the processing system, to track the packet transmissions, is configured to cause the transmitter to use a finite state machine to model the packet transmissions ([0032] and claim 1, finite state machine model control communication based on CCA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined communication system of Ras ‘812 and Lee ‘236, by incorporating the teaching of Zhang ‘973, since such modification would provide radio transmitter systems and radio receiver systems incorporating a scan system to select a channel for transmitting or receiving respectively, as suggested by Zhang ‘973([0011]).
Claims 9 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ras ‘812 and Lee ‘236 as applied to claim above, and further in view of Wolman et al(US 2011/0271345 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 26, the combination of Ras ‘812 and Lee ‘236 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the processing system is further configured to: detect a false positive based at least in part on basic service set monitoring.
Wollman ‘345 teaches, wherein the processing system is further configured to: detect a false positive based at least in part on basic service set monitoring ([0038]-[0039] and claim 6, identifying false positive based on BSSID).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined communication system of Ras ‘812 and Lee ‘236, by incorporating the teaching of Wollman ‘345, since such modification would provide a method for detecting rogue wireless network connections to a specific network, as suggested by Wollman ‘345([0008]).
Claims 10 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ras ‘812 and Lee ‘236 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Wang(US 2022/0217722 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 27, the combination of Ras ‘812 and Lee ‘236 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the processing system is further configured to: detect a false positive based at least in part on a medium occupancy failing to satisfy a threshold
Wang ‘722 teaches, wherein the processing system is further configured to: detect a false positive based at least in part on a medium occupancy failing to satisfy a threshold( Group A embodiments :A8, Group B embodiments: B6, filtering BWs based on occupancy threshold, to avoid false positive).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined communication system of Ras ‘812 and Lee ‘236, by incorporating the teaching of Wang ‘722, since such modification would provide a method of selecting between an unlicensed uplink carrier (e.g., NUL carrier) of a cell and a licensed uplink carrier (e.g., SUL carrier) of the cell, in a way that accounts for the unlicensed nature of the unlicensed uplink carrier's deployment, as suggested by Wang ‘722([0004]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 35 and 40 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, which can be found: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; or (3) EFS WEB. Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AWET A HAILE whose telephone number is (571)270-3114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached at (571)272-2832. 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.
/AWET HAILE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights