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 Amendment
Applicant’s submission filed on 12/20/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-14 are pending.
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.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are: “a third party module” and “a Wi-Fi module” in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The structure is defined in the Applicant’s specification at least in Fig. 1 and pars. [0022-0023]. For the limitation " a third party module", there is support for the functional language in the Applicant’s specification at least in Fig. 2 and par. [0026]. For the limitation " a Wi-Fi module", there is support for the functional language in the Applicant’s specification at least in Fig. 2 and par. [0026].
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding the limitation “so as to maintain concurrent reception of Wi-Fi and third-party signals without interruption”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (see MPEP § 2111.04, subsection I).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai et al. (US 2008/0293368), hereinafter "Desai", in view of Smadi et al. (US 2012/0258759), hereinafter "Smadi".
Regarding claims 1, 8, Desai teaches:
A mobile communication device or a mobile communication method (see Desai, Fig. 3, par. [0034], lines 1-4: Components of the wireless device illustrated in FIG. 3 includes generally a first wireless interface, e.g., a WLAN interface, a second wireless interface, e.g., a WPAN interface, and shared signal path components) including:
an antenna set for receiving third party signals and Wi-Fi signals (see Desai, Fig. 3, item 320, par. [0035], lines 1-3: The wireless device includes at least one antenna 320 and a plurality of signal path components that couple to the at least one antenna 320, and see Desai, par. [0036], lines 1-3: the WLAN interface and the WPAN interface both use the shared signal path components for transmit and receive operations; in this case, the antenna connects to both the WLAN interface (for Wi-Fi signals) and WPAN interface (for third party signals) to transmit and receive);
a third party module coupled to the antenna set, for processing the third party signals received by the antenna (see Desai, par. [0035], lines 14-15: The WPAN interface includes second baseband processing module 332, and see Desai, par. [0036], lines 1-3: the WLAN interface and the WPAN interface both use the shared signal path components for transmit and receive operations, and see Desai, Fig. 6, item 632, par. [0049], lines 1-4: The WPAN interface includes WPAN processing circuitry (second baseband processing module) 632, a WPAN receive path, a WPAN transmit path, a TX/RX switch module 648, and at least one antenna 650; in this case, the WPAN interface contains circuitry for processing associated signals); and
a Wi-Fi module coupled to the antenna set for processing the Wi-Fi signals received by the antenna set (see Desai, Fig. 3, item 302, par. [0035], lines 8-9: The WLAN interface includes a first baseband processing module 302, and see Desai, par. [0036], lines 1-3: the WLAN interface and the WPAN interface both use the shared signal path components for transmit and receive operations, and see Desai, Fig. 6, item 602, par. [0050], lines 1-4: WLAN interface includes WLAN processing circuitry (first baseband processing module) 602, WLAN receive path, WLAN transmit path, TX/RX switch 618, and at least one antenna 620; in this case, the WLAN interface contains circuitry for processing associated signals), wherein
a next Wi-Fi receiving gain is determined (see Desai, Fig. 5, items 504 and 506, par. [0045], lines 6-15: In a first operation according to the present invention, the first wireless interface, e.g., WLAN interface, requests gain control of the LNA or the PA of a shared signal path (Step 504). Then, the LNA or PA gain control is provided to the WLAN interface if possible (Step 506). Gain control may be provided to the WLAN interface at Step 506 based upon interaction between a baseband processing module servicing the WLAN interface 302 and a baseband processing module 332 servicing the second wireless interface, e.g., WPAN interface; in this case, gain control (corresponding to a next Wi-Fi receiving gain) is requested and provided (i.e. determined) for adjustments to gain elements), and
the Wi-Fi module adjusts a Wi-Fi receiving gain based on the next Wi-Fi receiving gain (see Desai, Fig. 5, items 510 and 512, par. [0046], lines 6-11: in response to the WLAN interface having LNA/PA gain control, the WPAN interface controls its adjustable gain elements in response to the WLAN control of the LAN/PA (Step 510). Further, the WLAN interface may control its adjustable gain element based upon its requested and provided LNA/PA gain control settings (Step 512), and see Desai, par. [0037]: gain control of the LNA 324 and the PA 314 of the shared signal path components is controlled by one of the WLAN interface and the WPAN interface. According to this aspect of the embodiment of FIG. 3, during a first operational period, the WLAN interface controls LNA 324 gain. Further, during a second operational period that differs from the first operational period, the WPAN interface controls LNA 324 gain; in this case, gain control of a WLAN (i.e. Wi-Fi) interface for coexistence between WLAN and WPAN interfaces is performed)
However, Desai does not teach:
wherein the next Wi-Fi gain is determined when a collision between third party communication by the third party module and Wi-Fi communication by the Wi-Fi module is detected by either the third party module or the Wi-Fi module and the next Wi-Fi gain is determined by either the third party module or the Wi-Fi module which detects the collision,
the Wi-Fi module dynamically adjusts a Wi-Fi receiving gain to a lower value to concurrently receive Wi-Fi signals and third party signals in response to detection of the collision between third party communication by the third party module and Wi-Fi communication by the Wi-Fi module, so as to maintain concurrent reception of Wi-Fi and third-party signals without interruption.
Smadi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the next Wi-Fi gain is determined when a collision between third party communication by the third party module and Wi-Fi communication by the Wi-Fi module is detected by either the third party module or the Wi-Fi module and the next Wi-Fi gain is determined by either the third party module or the Wi-Fi module which detects the collision (see Smadi, Fig. 4, par. [0023]: one problem with current wireless devices pertains to simultaneous WLAN and Bluetooth communications. During such communications, interference may arise between WLAN signal RX and Bluetooth signal (e.g., voice) TX. One key metric of WLAN receiver 413 performance is AGC which is used to regulate the received signal strength at the input of the ADC 472 such that the required signal-to-noise ratio ("SNR") for proper decoding is met. In the presence of strong ACI, better performance is obtained by reducing the level of AGC; in this case, reducing the level of AGC is performed in the WLAN interface (corresponding to determining Wi-Fi gain by the Wi-Fi module) when there is strong adjacent channel interference between WLAN and Bluetooth (corresponding to when a collision between third party communication and Wi-Fi communication is detected). These steps are performed at the SOC 470 which contains both WLAN (i.e. Wi-Fi) and Bluetooth (i.e. third party) modules),
the Wi-Fi module dynamically adjusts a Wi-Fi receiving gain to a lower value to concurrently receive Wi-Fi signals and third party signals in response to detection of the collision between third party communication by the third party module and Wi-Fi communication by the Wi-Fi module, so as to maintain concurrent reception of Wi-Fi and third-party signals without interruption (see Smadi, Fig. 4, par. [0023]: one problem with current wireless devices pertains to simultaneous WLAN and Bluetooth communications. During such communications, interference may arise between WLAN signal RX and Bluetooth signal (e.g., voice) TX. One key metric of WLAN receiver 413 performance is AGC which is used to regulate the received signal strength at the input of the ADC 472 such that the required signal-to-noise ratio ("SNR") for proper decoding is met. In the presence of strong ACI, better performance is obtained by reducing the level of AGC, and see Fig. 5, par. [0033]: At step 5205, the Bluetooth SCO session is started after the AGC has been adjusted at steps 5203 or 5204. At the end of this step, both radios 411, 421 have active sessions and are operating in parallel or simultaneously, and see par. [0022]: The SOC module 470 includes a Wi-Fi or WLAN radio 411 (i.e., including a Wi-Fi or WLAN transmitter and a Wi-Fi or WLAN receiver 413) for supporting wireless communications between the wireless device 100 and other devices (e.g., laptop computers 440, tablet computers 450, etc.) over a WLAN 410. The WLAN 410 may include one or more access points ("APs") 490, etc. The SOC module 470 also includes a Bluetooth radio 421 (i.e., including a Bluetooth transmitter 423 and a Bluetooth receiver) for supporting wireless communications between the wireless device 100 and other devices (e.g., laptop computers 440, tablet computers 450, etc.) over a Bluetooth network 420; in this case, the AGC value may be reduced (corresponding to adjusting a Wi-Fi receiving gain to a lower value) as part of the process for simultaneous communication of WLAN and Bluetooth).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the determination and adjustment of a Wi-Fi gain of Desai with the determination and adjustment to a lower value for concurrent reception of Wi-Fi and third party communications based on detection of a collision of Smadi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of allowing more efficient use of radios (see Smadi, par. [0047]).
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai in view of Smadi, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Scahill et al. (US 9,998,248), hereinafter "Scahill".
Regarding claims 2, 9, the combination of Desai in view of Smadi teaches the device or method. Desai further teaches:
the third party module calculates the next Wi-Fi receiving gain (see Desai, Fig. 5, items 514 and 516, par. [0047], lines 2-6: the WPAN interface may request gain control of the LNA or PA of the shared signal path components of the wireless device (Step 514). In response to this request made at Step 514, the LNA/PA gain control may be provided to the WPAN interface if possible (Step 516); in this case, gain control (corresponding to a next Wi-Fi receiving gain) is requested and provided (i.e. calculated) by the WPAN module (i.e. third party module) for adjustments to gain elements), and informs and/or controls the Wi-Fi module (see Desai, par. [0037], lines 2-8: gain control of the LNA 324 and the PA 314 of the shared signal path components is controlled by one of the WLAN interface and the WPAN interface. According to this aspect of the embodiment of FIG. 3, during a first operational period, the WLAN interface controls LNA 324 gain. Further, during a second operational period that differs from the first operational period, the WPAN interface controls LNA 324 gain; in this case, the WPAN module controls LNA gain (i.e. controls the Wi-Fi module)), and
when informed and/or controlled by the third party module, the Wi-Fi module adjusts the Wi-Fi receiving gain based on the next Wi-Fi receiving gain calculated by the third party module (see Desai, par. [0039], lines 1-6: during a second operational period, the WLAN interface, e.g., first baseband processing module 302 controls the gain of its at least one adjustable gain element 326 and 328 in its receive path in response to LNA 324 gain control of the WPAN interface, e.g., second baseband processing module 332; in this case the WLAN interface adjusts gain elements in response to gain control of the WPAN interface) to concurrently receive Wi-Fi signals and third party signals (see Desai, par. [0036], lines 1-3: the WLAN interface and the WPAN interface both use the shared signal path components for transmit and receive operations).
However, the combination of Desai in view of Smadi does not teach:
wherein when the collision between third party communication by the third party module and Wi-Fi communication by the Wi-Fi module is detected or expected by the third party module,
Scahill, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein when the collision between third party communication by the third party module and Wi-Fi communication by the Wi-Fi module is detected or expected by the third party module (see Scahill, Fig. 5, col. 7, lines 34-47: In FIG. 5 the flow attributes of flow 47 match and therefore the interference detection component 35 can identify LTE femtocell 27, which is the device corresponding to the local IP address of flow 47, as being a source of potential interference to Wi-Fi devices also connected to the hub 3. Having made this determination, the interference detection function 35 sends information relating to the LTE femtocell 27 to the interference mitigation component 37 via data link 45. The interference mitigation component 37 receives and analyzes the received information to determine a suitable mitigation action to be carried out by the interference detection function 35 and hub 3 to reduce or eliminate the interference caused by the LTE femtocell 27 to the other Wi-Fi devices 3, 9; in this case, action for mitigating interference is determined when interference between Wi-Fi and other signals is detected by the interference detection component of the hub (a device corresponding to the third party module and which is configured to receive both Wi-Fi and other signals)),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the third party module calculating the next Wi-Fi receiving gain and controlling the Wi-Fi module of the combination of Desai in view of Smadi with the calculation and control taking place when a collision is detected of Scahill with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of identifying sources of interference which could affect performance of Wi-Fi devices (see Scahill, col. 15, line 64-col. 16, line 6).
Regarding claims 3, 10, the combination of Desai in view of Smadi teaches the device or method. Desai further teaches:
the Wi-Fi module calculates the next Wi-Fi receiving gain (see Desai, Fig. 5, items 504 and 506, par. [0045], lines 6-15: In a first operation according to the present invention, the first wireless interface, e.g., WLAN interface, requests gain control of the LNA or the PA of a shared signal path (Step 504). Then, the LNA or PA gain control is provided to the WLAN interface if possible (Step 506). Gain control may be provided to the WLAN interface at Step 506 based upon interaction between a baseband processing module servicing the WLAN interface 302 and a baseband processing module 332 servicing the second wireless interface, e.g., WPAN interface; in this case, gain control (corresponding to a next Wi-Fi receiving gain) is requested and provided (i.e. calculated) by the WLAN module (i.e. Wi-Fi module) for adjustments to gain elements).
However, the combination of Desai in view of Smadi does not teach:
wherein when the collision between third party communication by the third party module and Wi-Fi communication by the Wi-Fi module is detected or expected by the Wi-Fi module,
Scahill, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein when the collision between third party communication by the third party module and Wi-Fi communication by the Wi-Fi module is detected or expected by the Wi-Fi module (see Scahill, Fig. 5, col. 7, lines 34-47: In FIG. 5 the flow attributes of flow 47 match and therefore the interference detection component 35 can identify LTE femtocell 27, which is the device corresponding to the local IP address of flow 47, as being a source of potential interference to Wi-Fi devices also connected to the hub 3. Having made this determination, the interference detection function 35 sends information relating to the LTE femtocell 27 to the interference mitigation component 37 via data link 45. The interference mitigation component 37 receives and analyzes the received information to determine a suitable mitigation action to be carried out by the interference detection function 35 and hub 3 to reduce or eliminate the interference caused by the LTE femtocell 27 to the other Wi-Fi devices 3, 9; in this case, action for mitigating interference is determined when interference between Wi-Fi and other signals is detected by the interference detection component of the hub (a device corresponding to the Wi-Fi module and which is configured to receive both Wi-Fi and other signals)),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the Wi-Fi party module calculating the next Wi-Fi receiving gain of the combination of Desai in view of Smadi with the calculation taking place when a collision is detected of Scahill with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of identifying sources of interference which could affect performance of Wi-Fi devices (see Scahill, col. 15, line 64-col. 16, line 6).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Desai in view of Smadi teaches the device. Desai further teaches:
the third party module calculates the next Wi-Fi receiving gain (see Desai, Fig. 5, items 514 and 516, par. [0047], lines 2-6: the WPAN interface may request gain control of the LNA or PA of the shared signal path components of the wireless device (Step 514). In response to this request made at Step 514, the LNA/PA gain control may be provided to the WPAN interface if possible (Step 516); in this case, gain control (corresponding to a next Wi-Fi receiving gain) is requested and provided (i.e. calculated) by the WPAN module (i.e. third party module) for adjustments to gain elements) and informs and/or controls the Wi-Fi module to increase the Wi-Fi receiving gain (see Desai, Fig. 3, pas. [0039], lines 6-21: In coordinating the control of the gain of LNA 324, the first baseband processing module 302 and the second baseband processing module 332 may exchange gain notification signals to indicate particular LNA 324 gain settings that are applied by a controlling one of the baseband processing modules 302 or 332. For example, the gain notification may indicate a gain setting for LNA 324 by baseband processing module 302 during the first operational period or a gain setting for LNA 324 by baseband processing module 332 during the second operational period. Such gain notification may indicate that the controlling baseband processing module 302 or 332 intends to increase or decrease LNA 324 gain. In such case, the non-controlling baseband processing module 302 or 332 may alter gain of its adjustable gain elements in the receive path to compensate for an impending change in LNA 324 gain; in this case, gain notifications may be shared between first and second baseband processing modules (i.e. Wi-Fi and third party modules), including notifications to increase LNA gain (i.e. increase the Wi-Fi receiving gain)).
However, the combination of Desai in view of Smadi does not teach:
wherein when the third party module expects that the collision between the third part communication and the Wi-Fi communication disappears,
Scahill, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein when the third party module expects that the collision between the third part communication and the Wi-Fi communication disappears (see Scahill, col. 11, lines 35-51: If there has been a change, for example a new matched rule has appeared (indicative of a new interferer/femtocell) or a matched rule is no longer present (an old interferer has been removed), then the matching processor forwards the list to the interference mitigation notifier 91. The interference mitigation notifier 91 sends the updated list to the interference mitigation function 37. Once a status message has been sent by the interference mitigation function 37 of the interference detection component 35, the mitigation action processor 93 of the hub 3 waits for a response from the interference mitigation component 37. The response will contain configuration information for adjusting the hub 3 so that the effect of LTE interference on the network 5 can be mitigated by reconfiguring operational aspects of the hub 3 such are wireless channel, transmission power etc; in this case, updating operational aspects of the hub can be performed in the case that a matched rule is no longer present (i.e. interference is no longer present) corresponding to a collision disappearing),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the third party module calculating the next Wi-Fi receiving gain and controlling the Wi-Fi module to increase the Wi-Fi receiving gain of the combination of Desai in view of Smadi with the calculation and control taking place when a module expects the collision to disappear of Scahill with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of identifying sources of interference which could affect performance of Wi-Fi devices (see Scahill, col. 15, line 64-col. 16, line 6).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Desai in view of Smadi teaches the method. Desai further teaches:
the third party module calculates the next Wi-Fi receiving gain (see Desai, Fig. 5, items 514 and 516, par. [0047], lines 2-6: the WPAN interface may request gain control of the LNA or PA of the shared signal path components of the wireless device (Step 514). In response to this request made at Step 514, the LNA/PA gain control may be provided to the WPAN interface if possible (Step 516); in this case, gain control (corresponding to a next Wi-Fi receiving gain) is requested and provided (i.e. calculated) by the WPAN module (i.e. third party module) for adjustments to gain elements) to increase the Wi-Fi receiving gain (see Desai, Fig. 3, pas. [0039], lines 6-21: In coordinating the control of the gain of LNA 324, the first baseband processing module 302 and the second baseband processing module 332 may exchange gain notification signals to indicate particular LNA 324 gain settings that are applied by a controlling one of the baseband processing modules 302 or 332. For example, the gain notification may indicate a gain setting for LNA 324 by baseband processing module 302 during the first operational period or a gain setting for LNA 324 by baseband processing module 332 during the second operational period. Such gain notification may indicate that the controlling baseband processing module 302 or 332 intends to increase or decrease LNA 324 gain. In such case, the non-controlling baseband processing module 302 or 332 may alter gain of its adjustable gain elements in the receive path to compensate for an impending change in LNA 324 gain; in this case, gain notifications may be shared between first and second baseband processing modules (i.e. Wi-Fi and third party modules), including notifications to increase LNA gain (i.e. increase the Wi-Fi receiving gain)).
However, the combination of Desai in view of Smadi does not teach:
wherein when the third party module expects that the collision between the third part communication and the Wi-Fi communication disappears,
Scahill, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein when the third party module expects that the collision between the third part communication and the Wi-Fi communication disappears (see Scahill, col. 11, lines 35-51: If there has been a change, for example a new matched rule has appeared (indicative of a new interferer/femtocell) or a matched rule is no longer present (an old interferer has been removed), then the matching processor forwards the list to the interference mitigation notifier 91. The interference mitigation notifier 91 sends the updated list to the interference mitigation function 37. Once a status message has been sent by the interference mitigation function 37 of the interference detection component 35, the mitigation action processor 93 of the hub 3 waits for a response from the interference mitigation component 37. The response will contain configuration information for adjusting the hub 3 so that the effect of LTE interference on the network 5 can be mitigated by reconfiguring operational aspects of the hub 3 such are wireless channel, transmission power etc; in this case, updating operational aspects of the hub can be performed in the case that a matched rule is no longer present (i.e. interference is no longer present) corresponding to a collision disappearing),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the third party module calculating the next Wi-Fi receiving gain and controlling the Wi-Fi module to increase the Wi-Fi receiving gain of the combination of Desai in view of Smadi with the calculation and control taking place when a module expects the collision to disappear of Scahill with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of identifying sources of interference which could affect performance of Wi-Fi devices (see Scahill, col. 15, line 64-col. 16, line 6).
Regarding claims 5, 12, the combination of Desai in view of Smadi teaches the device or method. Desai further teaches:
wherein either the third party module or the Wi-Fi module chooses the next Wi-Fi receiving gain to be higher or lower (see Desai, Fig. 3, pas. [0039], lines 6-21: In coordinating the control of the gain of LNA 324, the first baseband processing module 302 and the second baseband processing module 332 may exchange gain notification signals to indicate particular LNA 324 gain settings that are applied by a controlling one of the baseband processing modules 302 or 332. For example, the gain notification may indicate a gain setting for LNA 324 by baseband processing module 302 during the first operational period or a gain setting for LNA 324 by baseband processing module 332 during the second operational period. Such gain notification may indicate that the controlling baseband processing module 302 or 332 intends to increase or decrease LNA 324 gain. In such case, the non-controlling baseband processing module 302 or 332 may alter gain of its adjustable gain elements in the receive path to compensate for an impending change in LNA 324 gain; in this case, gain settings may be chosen and shared between first and second baseband processing modules (i.e. Wi-Fi and third party modules), including notifications to increase or decrease LNA gain (i.e. increase or decrease the Wi-Fi receiving gain)).
However, the combination of Desai in view of Smadi does not teach:
wherein either the third party module or the Wi-Fi module estimates whether Wi-Fi reception and third-party reception occur simultaneously
Scahill, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein either the third party module or the Wi-Fi module estimates whether Wi-Fi reception and third-party reception occur simultaneously (see Scahill, Fig. 5, col. 7, lines 34-47: In FIG. 5 the flow attributes of flow 47 match and therefore the interference detection component 35 can identify LTE femtocell 27, which is the device corresponding to the local IP address of flow 47, as being a source of potential interference to Wi-Fi devices also connected to the hub 3. Having made this determination, the interference detection function 35 sends information relating to the LTE femtocell 27 to the interference mitigation component 37 via data link 45. The interference mitigation component 37 receives and analyzes the received information to determine a suitable mitigation action to be carried out by the interference detection function 35 and hub 3 to reduce or eliminate the interference caused by the LTE femtocell 27 to the other Wi-Fi devices 3, 9; in this case, action for mitigating interference is determined when potential interference between Wi-Fi and other signals is detected (i.e. reception of the two types of signals to occur simultaneously) by the interference detection component of the hub (a device corresponding to the Wi-Fi module and which is configured to receive both Wi-Fi and other signals))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the choice of the next Wi-Fi receiving gain to be higher or lower of the combination of Desai in view of Smadi with the choice being based on an estimation of simultaneous reception of Scahill with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of identifying sources of interference which could affect performance of Wi-Fi devices (see Scahill, col. 15, line 64-col. 16, line 6).
Regarding claims 6, 13, the combination of Desai in view of Smadi teaches the device or method. Desai further teaches:
either the third party module or the Wi-Fi module chooses the next Wi-Fi receiving gain to be lower (see Desai, Fig. 3, pas. [0039], lines 6-21: In coordinating the control of the gain of LNA 324, the first baseband processing module 302 and the second baseband processing module 332 may exchange gain notification signals to indicate particular LNA 324 gain settings that are applied by a controlling one of the baseband processing modules 302 or 332. For example, the gain notification may indicate a gain setting for LNA 324 by baseband processing module 302 during the first operational period or a gain setting for LNA 324 by baseband processing module 332 during the second operational period. Such gain notification may indicate that the controlling baseband processing module 302 or 332 intends to increase or decrease LNA 324 gain. In such case, the non-controlling baseband processing module 302 or 332 may alter gain of its adjustable gain elements in the receive path to compensate for an impending change in LNA 324 gain; in this case, gain settings may be chosen and shared between first and second baseband processing modules (i.e. Wi-Fi and third party modules), including notifications to decrease LNA gain (i.e. decrease the Wi-Fi receiving gain)).
However, the combination of Desai in view of Smadi does not teach:
wherein when either the third party module or the Wi-Fi module estimates that the Wi-Fi reception and the third-party reception occur simultaneously
Scahill, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein when either the third party module or the Wi-Fi module estimates that the Wi-Fi reception and the third-party reception occur simultaneously (see Scahill, Fig. 5, col. 7, lines 34-47: In FIG. 5 the flow attributes of flow 47 match and therefore the interference detection component 35 can identify LTE femtocell 27, which is the device corresponding to the local IP address of flow 47, as being a source of potential interference to Wi-Fi devices also connected to the hub 3. Having made this determination, the interference detection function 35 sends information relating to the LTE femtocell 27 to the interference mitigation component 37 via data link 45. The interference mitigation component 37 receives and analyzes the received information to determine a suitable mitigation action to be carried out by the interference detection function 35 and hub 3 to reduce or eliminate the interference caused by the LTE femtocell 27 to the other Wi-Fi devices 3, 9; in this case, action for mitigating interference is determined when potential interference between Wi-Fi and other signals is detected (i.e. reception of the two types of signals to occur simultaneously) by the interference detection component of the hub (a device corresponding to the Wi-Fi module and which is configured to receive both Wi-Fi and other signals))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the choice of the next Wi-Fi receiving gain to be lower of the combination of Desai in view of Smadi with the choice being based on an estimation that simultaneous reception occurs of Scahill with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of identifying sources of interference which could affect performance of Wi-Fi devices (see Scahill, col. 15, line 64-col. 16, line 6).
Regarding claims 7, 14, the combination of Desai in view of Smadi teaches the device or method. Desai further teaches:
either the third party module or the Wi-Fi module chooses the next Wi-Fi receiving gain to be higher (see Desai, Fig. 3, pas. [0039], lines 6-21: In coordinating the control of the gain of LNA 324, the first baseband processing module 302 and the second baseband processing module 332 may exchange gain notification signals to indicate particular LNA 324 gain settings that are applied by a controlling one of the baseband processing modules 302 or 332. For example, the gain notification may indicate a gain setting for LNA 324 by baseband processing module 302 during the first operational period or a gain setting for LNA 324 by baseband processing module 332 during the second operational period. Such gain notification may indicate that the controlling baseband processing module 302 or 332 intends to increase or decrease LNA 324 gain. In such case, the non-controlling baseband processing module 302 or 332 may alter gain of its adjustable gain elements in the receive path to compensate for an impending change in LNA 324 gain; in this case, gain settings may be chosen and shared between first and second baseband processing modules (i.e. Wi-Fi and third party modules), including notifications to increase LNA gain (i.e. increase the Wi-Fi receiving gain)).
However, the combination of Desai in view of Smadi does not teach:
wherein when either the third party module or the Wi-Fi module estimates that the Wi-Fi reception and the third-party reception do not occur simultaneously
Scahill, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein when either the third party module or the Wi-Fi module estimates that the Wi-Fi reception and the third-party reception do not occur simultaneously (see Scahill, col. 11, lines 35-51: If there has been a change, for example a new matched rule has appeared (indicative of a new interferer/femtocell) or a matched rule is no longer present (an old interferer has been removed), then the matching processor forwards the list to the interference mitigation notifier 91. The interference mitigation notifier 91 sends the updated list to the interference mitigation function 37. Once a status message has been sent by the interference mitigation function 37 of the interference detection component 35, the mitigation action processor 93 of the hub 3 waits for a response from the interference mitigation component 37. The response will contain configuration information for adjusting the hub 3 so that the effect of LTE interference on the network 5 can be mitigated by reconfiguring operational aspects of the hub 3 such are wireless channel, transmission power etc; in this case, updating operational aspects of the hub can be performed in the case that a matched rule is no longer present (i.e. interference is no longer present) corresponding to a Wi-Fi and other signals not occurring simultaneously),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the choice of the next Wi-Fi receiving gain to be higher of the combination of Desai in view of Smadi with the choice being based on an estimation that simultaneous reception does not occur of Scahill with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of identifying sources of interference which could affect performance of Wi-Fi devices (see Scahill, col. 15, line 64-col. 16, line 6).
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s argument that a clear teaching-away exists (see applicant’s remarks, pages 7-8), examiner respectfully disagrees and points to Desai in Fig. 3 and par. [0036] which teaches “the WLAN interface and the WPAN interface both use the shared signal path components for transmit and receive operations. In some operations, the WLAN interface and WPAN interface receive information concurrently. Further, in other operations, both the WLAN interface and the WPAN interface transmit information concurrently. In still other operations, one of the WLAN interface and the WPAN interface is transmitting at one time while the other of the WLAN interface or the WPAN interface receive information at that time. Thus, the shared signal path components of the wireless device of FIG. 3 may be shared in many differing ways by the WLAN interface and the WPAN interface”.
This section teaches support for Desai’s system enabling concurrent operation and coexistence between Wi-Fi and third party communications.
Moreover, Desai does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage concurrent reception scenarios. Scc MPEP 2141.02 (VI) and In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004) [However, "the prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed ...."].
In response to applicant's argument that the cited references do not solve the problem addressed by the present application of "both modules sustain[ing] continuous operation without any link re-establishment delay” (see applicant’s remarks, page 15), the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.
Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA1979) (Claims were directed to grooved carbon disc brakes wherein the grooves were provided to vent steam or vapor during a braking action. A prior art reference taught noncarbon disc brakes which were grooved for the purpose of cooling the faces of the braking members and eliminating dust. The court held the prior art references when combined would overcome the problems of dust and overheating solved by the prior art and would inherently overcome the steam or vapor cause of the problem relied upon for patentability by applicants. Granting a patent on the discovery of an unknown but inherent function (here venting steam or vapor) “would re-move from the public that which is in the public domain by virtue of its inclusion in, or obviousness from, the prior art.” 596 F.2d at 1022, 201 USPQ at 661.); In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Appellant argued that the presence of DEHP as the plasticizer in a blood collection bag unexpectedly suppressed hemolysis and therefore rebutted any prima facie showing of obviousness, however the closest prior art utilizing a DEHP plasticized blood collection bag inherently achieved same result, although this fact was unknown in the prior art.).
“The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.” Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (The prior art taught combustion fluid analyzers which used labyrinth heaters to maintain the samples at a uniform temperature. Although appellant showed an unexpectedly shorter response time was obtained when a labyrinth heater was employed, the Board held this advantage would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art.). See also Lantech Inc. v. Kaufman Co. of Ohio Inc., 878 F.2d 1446, 12 USPQ2d 1076, 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 (1990) (unpublished — not citable as precedent) (“The recitation of an additional advantage associated with doing what the prior art suggests does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable invention.”).
In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) discussed in MPEP § 2144 are also pertinent to this issue. See MPEP 2145 II.
In response to applicant's argument that “Integrating Smadi’s AGC scheme into Desai’s shared RF front-end would require a complete hardware redesign” (see applicant’s remarks, page 13), applicant submits that Desai focuses on a shared RF front-end and LNA/PA between WLAN and WPAN, whereas Smadi focuses on separate antennas and independent LNAs for Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. Based on the distinction between Desai and Smadi, applicant submits that combining these references is “not a routine modification for a PHOSITA”. It appears that the applicant is attempting to argue that the features of Smadi cannot be bodily incorporated into Desai.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references (see applicant’s remarks, pages 12-14), the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Smadi teaches the motivation of allowing more efficient use of radios in par. [0047].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chen et al. (US 2020/0359333) teaches a wireless communication device and a dynamic anti-interference method.
Hirsch et al. (US 8,406,274) teaches an apparatus is disclosed comprising collocated primary receiver (PR) and a time synchronized receiver (TSR), with a Low Noise Amplifier (LNA) configured by a LNA gain control signal to create a shared amplified signal sent to the PR and the TSR for them to concurrently receive packets.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection 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 CALEB J BALLOWE whose telephone number is (571)270-0410. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 7:30-5.
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, Nishant B. Divecha can be reached at (571) 270-3125. 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.
/C.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419