DETAILED ACTION
Restriction/Election
Applicant's election without traverse of Species III corresponding to claims 1, 6-8, 12 and 17-19 in the reply filed on 07/27/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 2-5, 9-11, 13-16 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group.Claims 1-5 and 12 are pending in this application.
The specification and drawings have been accepted by the examiner.
IDS
The information disclosure statement filed 06/10/2026, 10/24/2025 and 01/13/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each patent listed that is not in the English language. The IDS documents CN 114698126-A, CN 115226219-A, TW 201720203-A, CN 101455104-A, CN 101640891-A and CN 103427855-A and TW 201417981-A, TW 1523547-B, TW 1571145-B, CN 112788696-A and TW 202239159-A are not in English except for their abstracts. Thus, they have been placed in the application file considered only based on their English Abstracts.
Claim Objection
Claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 17-19 are objected to because they include the phrases and “in response to” and “in case”. The phrases “in case”, “when”, “if” and “in response to" make the claims elements conditional.
A conditional limitation is a claim feature that depends on a certain condition being present. For example, when or if condition X is present, feature Y is implemented or has effect. Without condition X, feature Y may be dormant or have no effect. Applicant should be cognizant of possible conditional limitations implications because conditional limitations may affect claim validity and infringement. In this case, the limitation “if dedicated resource information for the paging signaling is received from the base station” in claims 15 is conditional, thus, the remainder of claim limitations may not happen. See In Ex Parte Schulhauser, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) held certain claims as unpatentable based on conditional limitations. Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016). The claimed subject matter related to “medical devices for monitoring physiological conditions and, in some embodiments, to a minimally invasive implantable device for monitoring a physiological conditions [sic] and detecting the onset of a critical cardiac event such as a myocardial infarction.” U.S. Patent No. 5987352 (filed July 31, 2008). The Board evaluated the effect of conditional limitations on independent method claim 1 and independent system claim 11. Schulhauser at 1.
Applicant is required to amend the claims so the claims are presented in positive steps by changing the phrases “in case”, when”, “if” or “in response" to phrases such as “based on” or “after determining”. Further, claim 9 is objected for including the term “n” without prior descriptions.
Applicant is invited to discuss this matter with the examiner. Further, the claims 1, 6, 7 are objected to because they are directed to a method but they include system elements e.g., processing module and co-frequency coexistence confirmation module. The processing module and the co-frequency coexistence confirmation module are described in the specification as circuits connected electrically. Applicant is advised to amend the claims so to avoid functional modules and only include method steps
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: processing module and co-frequency coexistence confirmation module in claims 1, 6-8, 12 and 17-19 and described in paragraphs 119-120 figure 8 as circuits.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabata (US 2019/0334576) in view of Faeber (US 20210006282) and further in view of HAO (US 20210120442).
Referring to claim 1, Yabata discloses a method for controlling a wireless communication circuit (FIG. 3 and FIG. 1, and Par. 31, “channel identifying unit 100 identifies, among all channels (79 channels) that are available for frequency hopping, a channel not subject to interference (hereinafter also referred to as “non-interference channel”) in the communication device 1. For example, the channel identifying unit 100 acquires, from the radio transmitting/receiving unit 12, the received signal strength indicator of each channel during a period in which communication is not performed, and determines for each channel whether the received signal strength indicator during the non-communication period is smaller than a predetermined threshold”), comprising: a processing module (FIG. 1 Par. 31, “the communication processing unit 10 includes a channel identifying unit 100, a first information acquiring unit 101, a second information acquiring unit 102, a channel group selecting unit 103, and a communication control unit 105”) acquiring current channel state information of at least two current operation channels which are in one-to-one correspondence with at least two communication paths (Par. 6, “a communication device that performs communication by using a group of channels”, “channel identifying unit that identifies the channel not subject to interference in a subject device, among a plurality of the channels that are available for communication”. Par. 51, “the channel identifying unit 100 acquires the received signal strength indicator of each channel from the radio transmitting/receiving unit 12 (ST105). The timing for acquiring the received signal strength indicator may be, for example, every certain time or when the no-communication state lasts for a certain time or longer”. Note that multiple one-to-one channels are established and the RSSI of each channel is acquired. The RSSI or (Received Signal Strength Indicator) is equivalent to channel state information, thus, a channel state information of at least two current operation channels is acquired) and
sending the current channel state information to a co-frequency coexistence confirmation module (Par. 6, 31 and FIG. 1, “the communication processing unit 10 includes a channel identifying unit 100, a first information acquiring unit 101, a second information acquiring unit 102, a channel group selecting unit 103, and a communication control unit 105”, “acquiring unit that acquires channel information about the channel not subject to interference in a communication partner; and a channel group selecting unit that selects, as the group of channels, a predetermined number of the channels or more on the basis of the channel identified by the channel identifying unit and the channel information acquired by the first information acquiring unit”. Note in figure 1, the channel identifying unit communicates with the communication processing unit. Further, all the units within the processing unit communicate with each other, thus, they send and receive information including RSSI and the units are aware of the channel conditions),
the co-frequency coexistence confirmation module confirming channel states of every two of the at least two current operation channels according to the current channel state information (Par. 51, “The channel identifying unit 100 compares the received signal strength indicator of each channel or the average of the received signal strength indicators with a predetermined threshold, and determines whether each channel is subject to interference on the basis of the comparison result”, note that the RSSI of each channel is compared to a threshold for verifying that the RSSI is good enough and would cause substantial interference, thus, the channel identifying unit is equivalent to co-frequency coexistence confirmation module because they both perform the same function. Further note that RSSI (which is equivalent to channel side information) is acquired and then compared to a threshold. This step of comparing the RSSI to a threshold in order to minimize interference is equivalent to verifying channel side information does to cause interference); and
in response to the channel states of the every two of the at least two current operation channels satisfy a first channel state, the processing module performing a channel reallocation operation on the at least two current operation channels to obtain at least two target operation channels which are in one-to-one correspondence with the at least two communication paths (Par. 6, 73, “channel group selecting unit 103 in this embodiment excludes channels that are adjacent to the continuous channel from the group of channels for frequency hopping”, “ channel group selecting unit that selects, as the group of channels, a predetermined number of the channels or more on the basis of the channel identified by the channel identifying unit and the channel information acquired by the first information acquiring unit. The channel group selecting unit selects at least one of the channels not subject to interference in both the subject device and the communication partner as at least a part of the group of channels and, if the number of the channels not subject to interference in both the subject device and the communication partner does not reach the predetermined number, further selects at least one of the channels subject to interference only in the subject device or the communication partner having a lower transmission power”, note that the channel selecting unit selects channel with the least interference based on RSSI determination and interference. Here, channel selection process based on RSSI is equivalent to channel reallocation operation on the at least two current operation channels to obtain at least two target operation channels which are in one-to-one correspondence with the at least two communication paths. Further, note that the claim language includes a conditional language e.g., “in response to”, thus, all the limitations following the phrase “in response to” are optional or conditional and they may not happen, the prior art isn’t required to find the conditional limitations),
wherein channel states of every two of the at least two target operation channels satisfy a second channel state (Par. 6, “The channel group selecting unit selects at least one of the channels not subject to interference in both the subject device and the communication partner as at least a part of the group of channels”, note that after determining RSSI and interference level of channels, the channel that is not subject to interference satisfies the selection),
Yabata is not relied on for wherein the at least two communication paths transmit signals operating in a same frequency band and having different communication protocols.
In an analogous art, Faeber discloses at least two communication paths transmit signals operating in a same frequency band and having different communication protocols (Par. 22, 66, “using a first communication protocol such as an LTE V2X radio, and a second ITS radio 204 adapted to communicate with remote ITS nodes over a second wireless channel in the same frequency band, using a second communication protocol different from the first communication protocol, such as an 802.11p radio”, note that two radio channels using the same frequency but using different communication protocols are used).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Yabata by incorporating the teachings of Faeber, as claimed, for the purpose of using frequency resources efficiently using frequency sharing and further for the purpose of minimizing interference by using different protocols. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
The above combination is not relied on for wherein the first channel state is used for indicating that co-frequency interference exists between the every two of the at least two current operation channels; and the second channel state is used for indicating that there is no co-frequency interference between every two of the at least two target operation channels.
In an analogous art, HAO discloses the first channel state is used for indicating that co-frequency interference exists between the every two of the at least two current operation channels; and the second channel state is used for indicating that there is no co-frequency interference between every two of the at least two target operation channels (Par. 44-46, FIG. 1-5 and their descriptions and Par. “plurality of measurement reference resources”, “UE 120 may include means for determining that one or more measurement reference resources … means for determining that there exists a valid interference measurement resource (IMR); means for determining that there exists no valid IMR”, note the UE includes means for plurality of measurement reference resources that read on multiple CSI and further, note that there is a means for determining that there exists a valid interference measurement resource (IMR), which is equivalent to for indicating that co-frequency interference exists between the every two of the at least two current operation channels and there is a means for determining that there exists no valid IMR that can read on indicating that there is no co-frequency interference between every two of the at least two target operation channels).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify combination by incorporating the teachings of HAO, as claimed, for the purpose of adjusting the allocating or reallocating of frequencies such that interference would be minimized or eliminated. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Referring to claim 12, Yabata discloses a wireless communication circuit (FIG. 1, “communication device”, “storage unit”, note that the communication device includes the circuit 10 that includes the processing unit and other circuit elements) configured to execute the method for controlling a wireless communication circuit according to claim 1, wherein the wireless communication circuit comprises
a processing module (FIG. 1 Par. 31, “the communication processing unit 10 includes a channel identifying unit 100, a first information acquiring unit 101, a second information acquiring unit 102, a channel group selecting unit 103, and a communication control unit 105”), a co-frequency coexistence confirmation module (Par. 6, “a communication device that performs communication by using a group of channels”, “channel identifying unit that identifies the channel not subject to interference in a subject device, among a plurality of the channels that are available for communication”. Par. 51, “the channel identifying unit 100 acquires the received signal strength indicator of each channel from the radio transmitting/receiving unit 12 (ST105). The timing for acquiring the received signal strength indicator may be, for example, every certain time or when the no-communication state lasts for a certain time or longer”.),
the processing module is electrically connected to the co-frequency coexistence confirmation module, the processing module is separately and electrically connected to each of the at least two communication paths (FIG. 1 Par. 31, “the communication processing unit 10 includes a channel identifying unit 100, a first information acquiring unit 101, a second information acquiring unit 102, a channel group selecting unit 103, and a communication control unit 105”), and the
processing module is configured to acquire current channel state information of at least two current operation channels which are in one-to-one correspondence with the at least two communication paths and send the current channel state information to the co-frequency coexistence confirmation module ((Par. 6, “a communication device that performs communication by using a group of channels”, “channel identifying unit that identifies the channel not subject to interference in a subject device, among a plurality of the channels that are available for communication”. Par. 51, “the channel identifying unit 100 acquires the received signal strength indicator of each channel from the radio transmitting/receiving unit 12 (ST105). The timing for acquiring the received signal strength indicator may be, for example, every certain time or when the no-communication state lasts for a certain time or longer”. Note that multiple one-to-one channels are established and the RSSI of each channel is acquired. The RSSI or (Received Signal Strength Indicator) is equivalent to channel state information, thus, a channel state information of at least two current operation channels is acquired); the co-frequency coexistence confirmation module is separately and electrically connected to each of the at least two communication paths, and the co-frequency coexistence confirmation module is configured to confirm channel states of every two of the at least two current operation channels according to the current channel state information (Par. 51, “The channel identifying unit 100 compares the received signal strength indicator of each channel or the average of the received signal strength indicators with a predetermined threshold, and determines whether each channel is subject to interference on the basis of the comparison result”, note that the RSSI of each channel is compared to a threshold for verifying that the RSSI is good enough and would cause substantial interference, thus, the channel identifying unit is equivalent to co-frequency coexistence confirmation module because they both perform the same function. Further note that RSSI (which is equivalent to channel side information) is acquired and then compared to a threshold. This step of comparing the RSSI to a threshold in order to minimize interference is equivalent to verifying channel side information does to cause interference), in response to the channel states of the every two of the at least two current operation channels satisfy a first channel state, the processing module performing a channel reallocation operation on the at least two current operation channels to obtain at least two target operation channels which are in one-to-one correspondence with the at least two communication paths (Par. 6, 73, “channel group selecting unit 103 in this embodiment excludes channels that are adjacent to the continuous channel from the group of channels for frequency hopping”, “ channel group selecting unit that selects, as the group of channels, a predetermined number of the channels or more on the basis of the channel identified by the channel identifying unit and the channel information acquired by the first information acquiring unit. The channel group selecting unit selects at least one of the channels not subject to interference in both the subject device and the communication partner as at least a part of the group of channels and, if the number of the channels not subject to interference in both the subject device and the communication partner does not reach the predetermined number, further selects at least one of the channels subject to interference only in the subject device or the communication partner having a lower transmission power”, note that the channel selecting unit selects channel with the least interference based on RSSI determination and interference. Here, channel selection process based on RSSI is equivalent to channel reallocation operation on the at least two current operation channels to obtain at least two target operation channels which are in one-to-one correspondence with the at least two communication paths. Further, note that the claim language includes a conditional language e.g., “in response to”, thus, all the limitations following the phrase “in response to” are optional or conditional and they may not happen, the prior art isn’t required to find the conditional limitations), wherein channel states of every two of the at least two target operation channels satisfy a second channel state (Par. 6, “The channel group selecting unit selects at least one of the channels not subject to interference in both the subject device and the communication partner as at least a part of the group of channels”, note that after determining RSSI and interference level of channels, the channel that is not subject to interference satisfies the selection).
Yabata is not relied on for wherein the at least two communication paths transmit signals operating in a same frequency band and having different communication protocols.
In an analogous art, Faeber discloses at least two communication paths transmit signals operating in a same frequency band and having different communication protocols (Par. 22, 66, “using a first communication protocol such as an LTE V2X radio, and a second ITS radio 204 adapted to communicate with remote ITS nodes over a second wireless channel in the same frequency band, using a second communication protocol different from the first communication protocol, such as an 802.11p radio”, note that two radio channels using the same frequency but using different communication protocols are used).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Yabata by incorporating the teachings of Faeber, as claimed, for the purpose of using frequency resources efficiently using frequency sharing and further for the purpose of minimizing interference by using different protocols. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
The above combination is not relied on for wherein the first channel state is used for indicating that co-frequency interference exists between the every two of the at least two current operation channels; and the second channel state is used for indicating that there is no co-frequency interference between every two of the at least two target operation channels.
In an analogous art, HAO discloses the first channel state is used for indicating that co-frequency interference exists between the every two of the at least two current operation channels; and the second channel state is used for indicating that there is no co-frequency interference between every two of the at least two target operation channels (Par. 44-46, FIG. 1-5 and their descriptions and Par. “plurality of measurement reference resources”, “UE 120 may include means for determining that one or more measurement reference resources … means for determining that there exists a valid interference measurement resource (IMR); means for determining that there exists no valid IMR”, note the UE includes means for plurality of measurement reference resources that read on multiple CSI and further, note that there is a means for determining that there exists a valid interference measurement resource (IMR), which is equivalent to for indicating that co-frequency interference exists between the every two of the at least two current operation channels and there is a means for determining that there exists no valid IMR that can read on indicating that there is no co-frequency interference between every two of the at least two target operation channels).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify combination by incorporating the teachings of HAO, as claimed, for the purpose of adjusting the allocating or reallocating of frequencies such that interference would be minimized or eliminated. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabata (US 2019/0334576) in view of Faeber (US 20210006282) and further in view of HAO (US 20210120442) and further in view of Zhuang (US 2023/0261718).
Referring to claim 6, the combination of Yabata/Faeber/HAO discloses the control method according to claim 1, wherein the processing module acquires the current channel state information of the at least two current operation channels which are in one-to-one correspondence with the at least two communication paths, comprises: the processing module performing channel estimation on the at least two current operation channels which are in one-to-one correspondence with the at least two communication paths to obtain first channel state information corresponding to each of the at least two communication paths ()Par. 6, “a communication device that performs communication by using a group of channels”, “channel identifying unit that identifies the channel not subject to interference in a subject device, among a plurality of the channels that are available for communication”. Par. 51, “the channel identifying unit 100 acquires the received signal strength indicator of each channel from the radio transmitting/receiving unit 12 (ST105). The timing for acquiring the received signal strength indicator may be, for example, every certain time or when the no-communication state lasts for a certain time or longer”. Note that multiple one-to-one channels are established and the RSSI of each channel is acquired. The RSSI or (Received Signal Strength Indicator) is equivalent to channel state information, thus, a channel state information of at least two current operation channels is acquired)
The above combination is not relied on for the co-frequency coexistence confirmation module determining whether history channel state information exists before the first channel state information; and in a case where the history channel state information exists, the processing module using the first channel state information as the current channel state information.
In an analogous art, Zhuang discloses determining whether history channel state information exists before the first channel state information; and in a case where the history channel state information exists, the processing module using the first channel state information as the current channel state information (Claim 33, “wherein predicting, based on the third channel state information, the first channel state information comprises predicting, based on the third channel state information and by using a prediction model, the first channel state information, and wherein the prediction model is based on first history channel state information of the preset quantity of antennas and second history channel state information of the RIS module”, note that the CSI history is used for determining the channel condition, thus, the CSI or channel state information is determined to exist. Further note that the first CSI based on the first CSI history is used. This is the same as using CSI history to predict or determine the current CSI based on one of the CSI items on the CSI history).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify combination by incorporating the teachings of Zhuang, as claimed, for the purpose of using one of the most efficient ways of determining CSI and further for the purpose of saving time using history and statistics . Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Dependent claim 17 recites features analogous to the features of claim 6, thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7, 18 and 19 is/are 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 and once the objections are overcome.
The following is the examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 7:
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the limitations “wherein after the co-frequency coexistence confirmation module determines whether the history channel state information exists before the current channel state information, the method further comprises: in a case where there is no history channel state information, the co-frequency coexistence confirmation module sending a channel estimation adjustment signal to the processing module; the processing module performing channel estimation on the at least two current operation channels to obtain second channel state information corresponding to each of the at least two communication paths, wherein the second channel state information is used for triggering the processing module to reallocate the at least two current operation channels; and the processing module using the second channel state information as the current channel state information”, along with the other limitations of the intermediate and/or base claims.
Regarding claim 18:
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the limitations “wherein in a case where there is no history channel state information, the co-frequency coexistence confirmation module is configured to send a channel estimation adjustment signal to the processing module after the co-frequency coexistence confirmation module determines whether the history channel state information exists before the current channel state information; the processing module is configured to perform channel estimation on the at least two current operation channels to obtain second channel state information corresponding to each of the at least two communication paths, wherein the second channel state information is used for triggering the processing module to reallocate the at least two current operation channels; and the processing module is configured to use the second channel state information as the current channel state information”, along with the other limitations of the intermediate and/or base claims.
Regarding claim 19:
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the limitations “, wherein in a case where the history channel state information exists, the co-frequency coexistence confirmation module is configured to compare the current channel state information with the history channel state information to obtain a state comparison result; in response to the state comparison result indicates that the first channel state information is consistent with the history channel state information, the co-frequency coexistence confirmation module is configured to determine a wireless connection state between the at least two communication paths and a remote electronic apparatus; and in response to the at least two communication paths are in connection state, the co-frequency coexistence confirmation module is configured to confirm the channel states of the every two of the at least two current operation channels according to the first channel state information”, along with the other limitations of the intermediate and/or base claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRED A CASCA whose telephone number is (571)272-7918. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9 to 5. 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, Kathy Wang-Hurst, can be reached at (571) 270-5371. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/FRED A CASCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
