DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant's amendment and request for
reconsideration filed on May 20, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments appear to acknowledge that Hassan’s disclosure is synonymous with saturated interference (i.e., “At most Hassan’s disclosure may allegedly be “indicative” of saturated interference”, see pp. 8), which the Examiner agrees, and thus broadly reads on the limitation which requires “determining whether the interference is duty-cycled or saturated.” In other words, the claim only requires one of determining that the interference is duty-cycled, or alternatively, determining that the interference is saturated, of which Hassan teaches the later, as Applicant appears to acknowledge.
Furthermore, with respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 2 and 15 (see pp. 8-9 of Applicant’s remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the Hassan’s description of a high value does not anticipate a “peak value” as claimed. As noted in the previous office action, Fig. 4, 524B, clearly points to the peak RSSI value of the chart in Fig. 4, when describing the RSSI as being high (see ¶0055).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hassan et al. (US 2008/0279093)(“Hassan”).
As per claim 1, Hassan teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a peripheral device (i.e., “the computing device 102 may be any device (e.g., a mobile station) enable to receive and transmit network packets via a wireless connection”, see ¶0023 also see ¶0100, “any other suitable portable or fixed electronic device”, which anticipates a peripheral device), comprising:
one or more memories (i.e., “computer readable medium”, see ¶0104); and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (see ¶0104), individually or collectively configured to cause the peripheral device to:
receive a signal experiencing interference (see Fig. 5, ref. 506, and ¶0048); and
transmit a suggestion for an adjustment to transmission of the signal (i.e., “changing the channel”, se Fig. 5, ref. 520) based at least in part on a determination of whether the interference is duty-cycled or saturated (see ¶0056, i.e., “if a wireless noise floor is high for long periods of time, the source of interference may be a non-802.11 device”, read as indicative of at least saturated interference).
As per claim 2, Hassan further teaches wherein the determination is based at least in part on a difference between a peak value of a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of the signal and an average value of the RSSI (see ¶0056, i.e., “if the RSSI has been high for a long period of time”, and ¶0054, “For example, a high RSSI may be determined relative to an average RSSI measured over an interval”, which implies a peak RSSI value (see for example Fig. 4, ref. 526B), being high relative to an average RSSI over a period of time).
As per claim 3, Hassan further teaches wherein the determination is that the interference is saturated, based at least in part on the difference satisfying a difference threshold (see ¶0056, i.e., “if the RSSI has been high for a long period of time”, see ¶0056, also see ¶0054, “For example, a high RSSI may be determined relative to an average RSSI measured over an interval”, which anticipates a difference threshold relative to an average RSSI).
As per claim 4, Hassan further teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the peripheral device to change a packet size or quantity used for the transmission of the signal (see ¶0045, where using an encoding scheme “with a low number of bits per symbol”, impliedly increases a quantity of packets used for transmission of a signal).
As per claim 6, Hassan further teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the peripheral device to refrain from fragmenting packets to a shorter length for the transmission of the signal (see also ¶0045, “Conversely, in a high-quality channel, encoding component 412 may be controlled to us an encoding scheme with a larger number of bits per symbol”, which anticipates refraining from fragmenting packets).
As per claim 7, Hassan further teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the peripheral device to change a modulation for the transmission of the signal (see ¶0034).
As per claim 8, Hassan further teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the peripheral device to select a quantity of measurements for the determination (i.e., RSSI and ER, see ¶0062, read as at least two measurements for the determination).
Claims 9-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-4 and 6-8 since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the above cited art.
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 of this title, 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 5, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassan in further view of Mak et al. (US 8,577,291)(“Mak”).
As per claims 5, 11, and 18, Hassan further teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the peripheral device to change data rate format used for the transmission of the signal (see ¶0034).
However, Hassan does not expressly teach changing an enhanced data rate packet format used for the transmission of the signal.
Nevertheless, in the same art of wireless signals adaption in response to channel quality, Mak teaches changing an enhanced data rate (EDR) packet format (see Fig. 4B, 7A-7D) in response to determined channel quality (see col. 9, line 63 – col. 10, lines 51, e.g., switch between
π
/4-DQPSK and 8DPSK, etc., and/or Fig. 8, i.e., use higher/lower data rate packet).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the teachings of Hassan within the context of Mak, for changing an enhanced data rate packet format in response to detected interference. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to improve communication throughput with respect to Bluetooth communication.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Brendan Higa whose telephone number is (571)272-5823. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, James Hwang can be reached at (571) 272-4036. 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.
/BRENDAN Y HIGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
Prosecution Insights