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 Arguments
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification should comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Verbose terms used in the specification are: The specification is repeating the Claims, and additional multiple dependencies, see page 46, paragraph [0147] - page 53, paragraph [0206], which is improper and needs to be deleted from the specification.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately.
It appears that, the Applicant is stating that, in addition to copying the Claims into the specification, multiple dependencies are additionally listed.
The Claims need to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). The additional multiple dependencies, if they meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), then they are redundant and need to be removed. The additional multiple dependencies, if they do not meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), then they need to be removed.
Prior art:
There is no requirement, in the Claim that, the first bandwidth and second bandwidth be different from one another. Furthermore, there is no requirement, in the Claim that, the first bandwidth and second bandwidth be at the same time.
Claims 3-6 incorporated by reference, their parent Claims limitations. Therefore, the remarks need to include the mappings, in the parent Claims.
Applicant states that, the sample sets are different from one another, therefore, they would be on a first plurality of channels and second plurality of channels, different from one another. Furthermore, there is no requirement, in the Claim that, the first plurality of channels and second plurality of channels, be different from one another.
The amended Claim 1 states: “a first Bluetooth channel sounding (BCS) configuration associated with a first bandwidth section that comprises a first plurality of channels and a second bandwidth section that comprises a second plurality of channels”. As seen here “a first Bluetooth channel sounding (BCS) configuration” is “associated with”. “associated with” is NOT: By contrast, amended independent claim 1 recites a single "first BCS configuration" that
both "configures first channels for sounding within the first bandwidth section in accordance with a first uniform inter-channel spacing" and, in accordance with the first recited alternative,
"configures second channels for sounding within the second bandwidth section in accordance with a second uniform inter-channel spacing." “associated with” is NOT configures. (See page 13, of the remarks, starting with line 8.)
Applicant states: By way of example, in an aspect of the subject application, the full ISM band is partitioned into two sub-bands, with a first sub-band from channels in {2, , 22} and a second sub-band from channels in {26, , 76}, whereby the UEs use a comb of 2 in the first sub-band and a comb of 3 in the second sub-band as part of the same BCS configuration, and whereby the UEs can combine the range estimates from both sub-bands to arrive at a final range estimate (e.g., using techniques such as the Chinese Remainder Theorem to resolve aliasing) (e.g., see FIG. 10 of the subject application and the associated portions of the Specification).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., see above) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding dependent Claim 6, the Applicant has not analyzed the motivation paragraphs that had been provided. Merely stating that, these paragraphs are in the background section is not sufficient.
Next, the Applicant states that, the modification would teach away from the base reference operating principles. However, it appears that, the Applicant states that, in their remarks, the base reference discloses “a first Bluetooth channel sounding (BCS) configuration associated with a first bandwidth section that comprises a first plurality of channels, wherein the first BCS configuration configures first channels for sounding within the first bandwidth section in accordance with a first uniform inter-channel spacing”. The invention has taken the teachings of the base reference, divided up the bandwidth, available to the UE, to two sections. Next, the “uniform inter-channel spacing”, would be exactly like the prior art reference.
The Applicant has utilized the logical operator OR in Claim 1; therefore, the limitation that, the Applicant is arguing, in one Claim interpretation, would not even be a required limitation: “the first bandwidth section is separated from the second bandwidth section by a number of channels that is greater than the first uniform inter-channel spacing and where no channels for sounding are configured”: If the first bandwidth section is separated from the second bandwidth section by a number of channels that is the same as the first uniform inter-channel spacing; then, this would be the same as the base reference.
Claim 6 was rejected under Obviousness, and, the above is within the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art. The base reference teaches the core concept.
The Applicant would need to consider the teaching of the secondary reference.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Next, the Applicant discusses, “a first user equipment (UE), negotiating, with a second UE”. The verb “negotiating” is not further defined. The Applicant appears to state that, the base reference, on its own, makes decisions regarding bandwidth. However, a core concept of digital communication is that, the bandwidth for communication between electronic devices needs to be established. Whether this “negotiating” is between the electronic devices directly, or, through an intermediary, the electronic devices need to know the bandwidth, to communicate with one another.
The teachings of all of the references, utilized in the Office action, would need to be discussed, since the dependent Claims incorporate by reference the teachings of their parent Claims. The Applicant would need to explain the difference between the Claims and all applied references.
Furthermore, the base reference teaches: [0120] FIG. 14A is a flow diagram of a method 1480. A method 1480 can be executed by an initiator device compatible with an IEEE 802.11 wireless standard. A method 1480 can include establishing different sample sets composed of equally spaced subcarriers in channels 1480-0. Channels can include channels according to one or more IEEE 802.11 standards (e.g., 20 MHz, 40 MHz, 80 MHz, 160 MHz). A method 1480 can include selecting a channel 1480-1. Such an action can include selecting one of the channels for which a sample set has been established.
As seen above, a first bandwidth of 20 MHz, a second bandwidth of 40 MHz, a third bandwidth of 80 MHz, a fourth bandwidth of 160 MHz, are disclosed. As seen above, establishing different sample sets composed of equally spaced subcarriers in channels 1480-0 are disclosed.
The above meets the disclosed invention. Furthermore, Fig. 5A:514-1 largest uniform frequency step to span as much BW as possible, e.g., for the first bandwidth of 20 MHz, the second bandwidth of 40 MHz, the third bandwidth of 80 MHz, the fourth bandwidth of 160 MHz, would be different from one another. In addition, there would be a gap between these bandwidths.
In addition, The Applicant, on the Legal Record, would need to state that, Lehtimaki (US 20250286751 A1) does not teach the Claimed limitations. E.g., Lehtimaki [0055] Additionally, this method can be used with a sparse channel frequency response. In many embodiments, there are several Bluetooth channels that are reserved for advertisements, and therefore should not be used for distance measurements. The present approach allows the channel frequency response to be created using as many or as few channels as desired. For example, in some embodiments, the channel frequency response may be calculated without using any of the advertising channels. The test described above was repeated where the channel frequency response was generated using fewer frequencies. There was little change in the distance error, even with fewer frequencies.
As seen above, Lehtimaki explicitly discloses multiple disjoint bandwidths, channels, and, using as many or as few channels as desired. There was little change in the distance error, even with fewer frequencies.
Additionally, the above provides additional motivation: There was little change in the distance error, even with fewer frequencies.
Specification
The specification is objected to because of the following:
The specification is repeating the Claims, see page 46, paragraph [0147] - page 53, paragraph [0206], which is improper and needs to be deleted from the specification. (This is a carry over from the previous office action.)(Applicant has clarified that, there are additional multiple dependencies, listed.)
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 19 limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The mapping to the disclosure is as follows:
Claim 19. A first user equipment (UE), comprising: means for negotiating, with a second UE, a first Bluetooth channel sounding (BCS) configuration associated with a first bandwidth section that comprises a first plurality of channels, wherein the first BCS configuration configures first channels for sounding within the first bandwidth section in accordance with a first uniform inter-channel spacing, and wherein the first uniform inter-channel spacing is an integer that is greater than or equal to 2 (Fig. 4-6, including associated text in the specification); and means for performing a first BCS procedure between the first UE and the second UE in accordance with the first BCS configuration (Fig. 7-10, including associated text in the specification).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 non-obviousness.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 7-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolych (US 20230199456 A1) in view of Lehtimaki (US 20250286751 A1).
Claim 1. Kolych teaches a method of operating a first user equipment (UE) ([0097]- [0100]), comprising:
negotiating, with a second UE, a first Bluetooth channel sounding (BCS) configuration associated with a first bandwidth section that comprises a first plurality of channels (FIG. 12, [0106] - [0110]) and a second bandwidth section that comprises a second plurality of channels (FIG. 5B, FIG. 6A, [0120] FIG. 14A),
wherein the first BCS configuration configures first channels for sounding within the first bandwidth section in accordance with a first uniform inter-channel spacing ([0056]- [0062]),
wherein the first uniform inter-channel spacing is an integer that is greater than or equal to 2 ([0058] [0065]); and
wherein the first BCS configuration configures second channels for sounding within the second bandwidth section in accordance with a second uniform inter-channel spacing (FIG. 5B, FIG. 6A) or the first bandwidth section is separated from the second bandwidth section by a number of channels that is greater than the first uniform inter-channel spacing and where no channels for sounding are configured ([0030] [0035] [0041])([0056]- [0062]), or both; and
performing a first BCS procedure between the first UE and the second UE in accordance with the first BCS configuration (FIG. 12, [0106] - [0110]).
Kolych does not explicitly teach the combination of the underlined feature, above.
Kolych does not explicitly teach the combination of these features: separated, where no channels for sounding are configured.
The missing elements are disclosed by Lehtimaki ([0055]).
(AIA ) 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, because: e.g., see Lehtimaki [0001]- [0006] [0055].
Therefore, the combination of references, discloses the combination of the claimed limitations.
Claim 2. Kolych in view of Lehtimaki teaches the method of claim 1, Kolych further teaches wherein the first BCS procedure comprises measurement operations of first BCS signals received at the first UE from the second UE, or wherein the first BCS procedure comprises transmission operations of second BCS signals transmitted by the first UE to the second UE ([0096]- [0099]).
Claim 7. Kolych in view of Lehtimaki teaches the method of claim 1, Kolych further teaches wherein the first bandwidth section comprises a subset of contiguous channels that is less than the first uniform inter-channel spacing and where no channels for sounding are configured, and wherein the first channels for sounding within the first bandwidth section are configured so as not to overlap with any of the subset of contiguous channels ([0030] [0035] [0041])([0056]- [0062]).
Kolych does not explicitly teach the combination of the underlined feature, above.
Kolych does not explicitly teach the combination of these features: where no channels for sounding are configured.
The missing elements are disclosed by Lehtimaki ([0055]).
(AIA ) 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, because: e.g., see Lehtimaki [0001]- [0006].
Therefore, the combination of references discloses the combination of the claimed limitations.
Claim 8. Kolych in view of Lehtimaki teaches the method of claim 1, Kolych further teaches determining a second BCS configuration associated with the first bandwidth section, wherein the second BCS configuration configures third channels for sounding within the first bandwidth section in accordance with the first uniform inter-channel spacing or another uniform inter-channel spacing; and performing a second BCS procedure between the first UE and a second UE in accordance with the second BCS configuration ([0056]- [0062] [0106] - [0110]).
Claim 9. Kolych in view of Lehtimaki teaches the method of claim 1, Kolych further teaches wherein the first uniform inter-channel spacing is based on one or more ranging procedures that precede the first BCS procedure ([0056]- [0062] [0106] - [0110]).
Claim 10. Kolych in view of Lehtimaki teaches the method of claim 9, Kolych further teaches wherein the one or more ranging procedures comprise: another BCS procedure, or a Bluetooth low energy (BTE) Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI)-based ranging procedure, or a non-Bluetooth ranging procedure, or any combination thereof ([0002] [0056]- [0062] [0106] - [0110]).
Claim 11. Kolych in view of Lehtimaki teaches the method of claim 9, Kolych further teaches determining ranging information associated with the one or more ranging procedures, wherein the first uniform inter-channel spacing corresponds to the ranging information, or wherein the first uniform inter-channel spacing corresponds to the ranging information when compensated for aliasing ([0056]- [0062] [0106] - [0110]).
Claim 12. Kolych in view of Lehtimaki teaches the method of claim 1, Kolych further teaches determining to transition the first uniform inter-channel spacing within the first bandwidth section to another uniform inter-channel spacing; and continuing to perform the first BCS procedure between the first UE and the second UE in the first bandwidth section in accordance with the another uniform inter-channel spacing ([0056]- [0062] [0106] - [0110]).
Claim 16 is rejected substantially the same as the corresponding claim 1, where Kolych further teaches a first user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories; one or more transceivers; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more transceivers, the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to ([0073] [0080]).
Claim 17. Kolych in view of Lehtimaki teaches the first UE claim 1, Kolych further teaches wherein the first BCS configuration is further associated with a second bandwidth section that comprises a second plurality of channels (FIG. 5B, FIG. 6A).
Claim 18 is rejected substantially the same as the corresponding Claim 8.
Claim 19 is rejected substantially the same as the corresponding Claim 16 and Claim 1.
Claim 20 is rejected substantially the same as the corresponding Claim 2.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolych in view of Lehtimaki, and further in view of Chan (US 20110103428 A1).
Claim 13. Kolych in view of Lehtimaki teaches the method of claim 1, Kolych further teaches wherein the first uniform inter-channel spacing is based on interference information ([0056]- [0062]).
Kolych in view of Lehtimaki does not explicitly teach the combination of the underlined feature, above.
Kolych in view of Lehtimaki does not explicitly teach the combination of these features: interference.
The missing elements are disclosed by Chan ([0032]- [0043]).
(AIA ) 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, because: e.g., see Chan [0001]- [0004].
Therefore, the combination of references, discloses the combination of the claimed limitations.
Claim 14. Kolych in view of Lehtimaki teaches the method of claim 13, Kolych further teaches wherein the interference information is based on measurements performed by the first UE, the second UE, or both ([0056]- [0062]).
Kolych in view of Lehtimaki does not explicitly teach the combination of the underlined feature, above.
Kolych in view of Lehtimaki does not explicitly teach the combination of these features: interference.
The missing elements are disclosed by Chan ([0032]- [0043]).
(AIA ) 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, because: e.g., see Chan [0001]- [0004].
Therefore, the combination of references, discloses the combination of the claimed limitations.
Claim 15. Kolych in view of Lehtimaki teaches the method of claim 13, Kolych further teaches wherein the first uniform inter-channel spacing is selected so as to exclude, from the first channels for sounding, any channel associated with interference that is above an interference threshold within the first bandwidth section ([0056]- [0062]).
Kolych in view of Lehtimaki does not explicitly teach the combination of the underlined feature, above.
Kolych in view of Lehtimaki does not explicitly teach the combination of these features: interference threshold.
The missing elements are disclosed by Chan ([0032]- [0043]).
(AIA ) 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, because: e.g., see Chan [0001]- [0004].
Therefore, the combination of references, discloses the combination of the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and claims:
Grandhe (US 20250234330 A1, Abstract)
Seeber (US 20230292162 A1, Abstract)
Applicant's amendment, and remarks, necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection, if any, 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 HOOMAN HOUSHMAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1817. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PT. 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, AYMAN ABAZA can be reached at (571)270-0422. 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.
/AYMAN A ABAZA/SPE, Art Unit 2429
/ HOOMAN HOUSHMAND/Examiner, Art Unit 2429
