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, corresponding to claims 1-17, in the reply filed on 06/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patil (US 2018/0110046 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Patil (US 2018/0110046 A1) teaches an apparatus for communication with a plurality of devices using time divisional multiple access (TDMA) (see para 0045 “The described implementations may be implemented in any device, system or network that is capable of transmitting and receiving RF signals according to any of the IEEE 16.11 standards, or .. time division multiple access (TDMA)”), the apparatus comprising processing circuity configured to:
receive a signal from a device of the plurality of devices (see para 0059 “a STA may intercept communications transmitted by wireless devices (such as APs or STAs)”);
determine, using the signal from the device, whether the device is experiencing signal interference (see para 0048 “In some other implementations, an AP may detect the presence of an overlapping BSS having the same TBTT as its own. In some aspects, the AP may detect a beacon collision by intercepting beacon frames broadcast by neighboring BSSs.”)[ collision is interpreted as interference]
in response to determining that the device is not experiencing signal interference, output a superframe including a first beacon at a first time, wherein the first beacon indicates a starting of the superframe (see para 0178 “If the beacon collision no longer persists (as tested at 1830), the AP may lock in the current TBTT for future beacon transmissions (1840). For example, the AP may cease incrementally adjusting the TBTT for the current BSS, and may time its transmission of future beacons in accordance with the current TBTT”) [ collision is interpreted as interference] ; and
in response to determining that the device is experiencing signal interference, output a time-shifted superframe including a second beacon at a second time that is different than the first time, wherein the second beacon indicates a starting of the time- shifted superframe (see para 0177 “At each subsequent TBTT, the AP may determine whether the beacon collision persists (1830). As long as the beacon collision persists (as tested at 1830), the AP may continue to expedite or delay its TBTT for a subsequent beacon interval (1820).”).
Regarding claim 10, Patil teaches a method comprising the steps of:
receiving, at processing circuitry, a signal from a device of a plurality of devices(see para 0059 “a STA may intercept communications transmitted by wireless devices (such as APs or STAs)”);;
determining, at the processing circuitry using the signal from the device, whether
the device is experiencing signal interference (see para 0048 “In some other implementations, an AP may detect the presence of an overlapping BSS having the same TBTT as its own. In some aspects, the AP may detect a beacon collision by intercepting beacon frames broadcast by neighboring BSSs.”)[ collision is interpreted as interference] ;
in response to determining, at the processing circuitry, that the device is not
experiencing signal interference, outputting, by the processing circuitry, a superframe including a first beacon at a first time, wherein the first beacon indicates a starting of the superframe (see para 0178 “If the beacon collision no longer persists (as tested at 1830), the AP may lock in the current TBTT for future beacon transmissions (1840). For example, the AP may cease incrementally adjusting the TBTT for the current BSS, and may time its transmission of future beacons in accordance with the current TBTT”) [ collision is interpreted as interference]
in response to determining, at the processing circuitry, that the device is experiencing signal interference, outputting, by the processing circuitry, a time-shifted superframe including a second beacon at a second time that is different than the first time, wherein the second beacon indicates a starting of the time-shifted superframe. (see para 0177 “At each subsequent TBTT, the AP may determine whether the beacon collision persists (1830). As long as the beacon collision persists (as tested at 1830), the AP may continue to expedite or delay its TBTT for a subsequent beacon interval (1820).”).
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.
5. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6 . Claim(s) 2, 4-6, 11, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil (US 2018/0110046 A1) in view of Razavilar (US 2003/0181211 A1).
Regarding claim 2, 11, Modified Patil doesn’t teach wherein determining, using the signal from the device, whether the device is experiencing signal interference comprises determining if the signal received from the device matches a predefined signal interference criteria.
Razavilar (US 2003/0181211 A1) teaches determining, using the signal from the device, whether the device is experiencing signal interference comprises determining if the signal received from the device matches a predefined signal interference criteria (see para 0073 “if the signal activity on available channels other than CI[1] is only adjacent channel interference, if the channel metric of CI[1] is lower than all of these available channels by more than the prescribed threshold”).
Thus it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine determine that the device is experiencing signal interference by determining that the signal received from the device is the retry signal in the system of Patil. The motivation is to reduce potential adverse effects (Razavilar: see para 0005)
Regarding claim 4, 13, Modified Patil doesn’t teach wherein the predefined signal interference criteria includes a retry signal, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine that the device is experiencing signal interference by determining that the signal received from the device is the retry signal.
Razavilar (US 2003/0181211 A1) teaches the predefined signal interference criteria includes a retry signal, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine that the device is experiencing signal interference by determining that the signal received from the device is the retry signal. (see para 0095 “If the signal activity in the QUIETEST channel is above the upper threshold, this means that none of the available channels are "interference free enough" to be selected, and in one embodiment, a retry counter (that is set to zero upon initiation of the DCS algorithm) is incremented by one (Step 518).”)
Thus it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine determine that the device is experiencing signal interference by determining that the signal received from the device is the retry signal in the system of Patil. The motivation is to reduce potential adverse effects (Razavilar: see para 0005)
Regarding claim 5, 14, Modified Patil doesn’t teach the predefined signal interference criteria is a predefined number of retry signals received from the device, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine that the device is experiencing signal interference by determining that the signal received from the device meets the predefined number of retry signals received from the device.
Razavilar (US 2003/0181211 A1) teaches the predefined signal interference criteria is a predefined number of retry signals received from the device, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine that the device is experiencing signal interference by determining that the signal received from the device meets the predefined number of retry signals received from the device. (see para 0095 “f the signal activity in the QUIETEST channel is above the upper threshold, this means that none of the available channels are "interference free enough" to be selected, and in one embodiment, a retry counter (that is set to zero upon initiation of the DCS algorithm) is incremented by one (Step 518). If the retry counter is less than a predetermined maximum number of attempts R (Step 519), the DCS process is restarted again (Step 502), i.e., the available channels will be probed again. This process of tuning into each of the eight available channels, taking measurements, and calculating a channel metric for each of the eight available channels will be repeated up to R times.”)
Thus it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine determine that the device is experiencing signal interference by determining that the signal received from the device is the retry signal in the system of Patil. The motivation is to reduce potential adverse effects (Razavilar: see para 0005)
Regarding claim 6, Modified Patil doesn’t teach the predefined number of retry signals received from the device is two or more retry signals.
Razavilar teaches wherein the predefined number of retry signals received from the device is two or more retry signals (see para 0095 “If the retry counter is less than a predetermined maximum number of attempts R (Step 519), the DCS process is restarted again (Step 502),”)
Thus it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the predefined number of retry signals received from the device is two or more retry signals in the system of Patil. The motivation is to reduce potential adverse effects (Razavilar: see para 0005)
7. Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil (US 2018/0110046 A1) in view of Shah (US 2020/0274612 A1)
Regarding claim 8, 16, Patil doesn’t teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to use a same channel number to output each of the superframe and the time-shifted superframe.
Shah (US 20200274612 A1) teaches the processing circuitry is configured to use a same channel number to output each of the superframe and the time-shifted superframe. (see para 0045 “superframe 414 of hub 410 and superframe 424 of hub 420. These superframes are offset in time such that no interference 430 occurs for the beacons even if the hubs use the same RF channel.”)
Thus it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine using a same channel number to output each of the superframe and the time-shifted superframe in the system of Patil. The motivation is to improve network conditions (Shah: see para 0029)
8. Claim(s) 9, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil (US 2018/0110046 A1) in view of Odman (US 20030137993).
Regarding claims 9, 17, Long teaches wherein the first beacon further indicates a group number assigned to each device of the plurality of devices, and wherein the second beacon further indicates a group number assigned to each device of the plurality of devices.
Odman (US 20030137993) teaches wherein the first beacon further indicates a group number assigned to each device of the plurality of devices, and wherein the second beacon further indicates a group number assigned to each device of the plurality of devices. (see para 0122 “Each associating device will preferably get its contention group assignment through an extra entry in the association response frame it receives from the coordinator 310. In an alternate embodiment, the contention group assignments could be announced in the beacon”)
Thus it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine beacon indicates a group number assigned to each device of the plurality of devices. in the system of Patil. The motivation is to increase performance (Odman: see para 0119)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3,7, 12, 15, objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMIT KAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-5665. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, NOEL BEHARRY can be reached at 5712705630. 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.
/PAMIT KAUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights