DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment submitted on 07/08/2026 has been received and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-20 were amended and remain pending.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: it recites “the control circuitry comprising: performing a communication process”. Presumably this was intended to read “the method comprising: performing a communication process”. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-11, 13-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chay et al. (US 2018/0324618 A1, hereinafter “Chay”) in view of Zhou et al. (US 2023/0283650 A1, hereinafter “Zhou”).
As to Claims 1, 13, 14, and 20:
Chay describes a method for a wireless device to send a report on periodic interference to an access point.
Specifically, Chay teaches:
Control circuitry configured to perform a communication process
Fig. 8 in Chay shows an example user device including “communications circuitry”, element 802.
Performing a detection of a plurality of frequency hopping signals that are transmitted periodically by a frequency hopping communication system
Chay teaches that a user device “may utilize the IE 104 [in Fig. 1] to notify an AP ... of several characteristics associated with collocated interference as shown below in Table 1” (Chay, 0033). Table 1 then defines an “Interference Interval” as the “Interval between two successive periods of interference” which “enables reporting of periodic interference”. “Bluetooth” is listed as a potential use case for this reporting field (Chay, Table 1).
Here, “notify[ing] an AP” of “collocated interference” corresponds to “performing a detection”,
periodic “Bluetooth” corresponds to “a plurality of frequency hopping signals that are transmitted ... by a frequency hopping communication system”, and
“periodic interference” indicates that the “signals are transmitted periodically”.
Determining a first interference timing at which a frame to be transmitted by the wireless communication device could interfere with the plurality of frequency hopping signals
Table 1 in Chay defines an “Interference Interval” as the “Interval between two successive periods of interference” which “enables reporting of periodic interference” for “Bluetooth” (Chay, Table 1).
Here, the “interference interval” corresponds to “a first interference timing at which a frame to be transmitted by the wireless communication device could interfere with the plurality of frequency hopping signals”.
Determining a first period related to the first interference timing during which a transmission of the frame to be transmitted is to be suspended
In Fig. 6 in Chay, a user device identifies interference information that includes an “Interference Interval”, the “Interval between two successive periods of interference” which “enables reporting of periodic interference” (Chay, Table 1). Fig. 7 then describes the access point’s response to receiving the interference information from the UE, which includes “adjust[ing] one or more of a scheduling data and modulation and coding scheme data for the user device” (Chay, 0046).
Here, the AP “adjusting ... a scheduling data” in response to receiving the “Interference Interval” indicates that this interval is “a first period related to the first interference timing during which a transmission of the frame to be transmitted is to be suspended.
Transmitting, to another wireless communication device, information related to the first interference timing via a control frame
Fig. 6 in Chay depicts a user device that “may determine one or more interference characteristics”, “encode an information element with information associated with one or more interference characteristics”, and “send a frame including the information element to an access point” (Chay, 0040-0042).
Here, “send a frame including the information element” corresponds to “transmitting, to another wireless communication device, information related to the first interference timing via a control frame”.
The information related to the first interference timing includes each of:
Time information of the first interference timing, and
Information about the first period related to the interference timing
Chay states that the “one or more interference characteristics” the UE reports may include “an interference start time” and “an interference interval”, among other parameters (Chay, 0040).
Here, “an interference start time” corresponds to “time information of the first interference timing”, and
“an interference interval” corresponds to “information about the first period related to the interference timing”.
Chay does not explicitly disclose:
Receiving a block acknowledgement (ACK) frame from the another wireless communication device
Stop transmission of the frame to the another wireless communication device, during the first period
However, Zhou does describe a method for a device to stop sending a Bluetooth signal after receiving an acknowledgement packet from a master device.
Specifically, Zhou teaches:
Receiving a block acknowledgement (ACK) frame from the another wireless communication device
Zhou states that after a “second device whose receiving is failed sends a first special acknowledgement packet in the n-th cycle”, the “first device” should “stop sending a signal in the n-th cycle after receiving the first additional field in the first special acknowledgement packt” (Zhou, 0021).
Here, “send[ing] a first special acknowledgement packet” maps to “receiving a block acknowledgement (ACK) frame from the another wireless communication device”.
Stop transmission of the frame to the another wireless communication device, during the first period
Zhou states that after a “second device whose receiving is failed sends a first special acknowledgement packet in the n-th cycle”, the “first device” should “stop sending a signal in the n-th cycle after receiving the first additional field in the first special acknowledgement packt” (Zhou, 0021).
Here, “stop sending a signal in the n-th cycle” maps to “stop transmission of the frame to the another wireless communication device, during the first period”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zhou’s method for stopping Bluetooth transmission into Chay’s method for reporting periodic interference information. As Zhou states, if “interference occurring between feedback packets sent by two devices may be avoided”, then “the power consumption of a first device and a second device may be coordinated and synchronism of the audio data may be improved” (Zhou, 0006).
Claim 13 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 1 in the form of a method claim.
Claim 14 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 1 from the perspective of the device receiving the interference measurements with the claim limitations rearranged.
Claim 20 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 1 from in the form of a method claim from the perspective of the device receiving the interference measurements with the claim limitations rearranged.
As to Claims 2 and 15:
Chay teaches:
The control circuitry performs control to transmit the frame while avoiding the first interference timing based on the information related to the first interference timing
In Fig. 6 in Chay, a user device identifies interference information that includes an “Interference Interval”, the “Interval between two successive periods of interference” which “enables reporting of periodic interference” (Chay, Table 1). Fig. 7 then describes the access point’s response to receiving the interference information from the UE, which includes “adjust[ing] one or more of a scheduling data and modulation and coding scheme data for the user device” (Chay, 0046).
Here, “adjust[ing] ... a scheduling data” maps to “transmit the frame while avoiding the first interference timing”, and
the “Interference Interval” maps to “the first interference timing”.
Claim 15 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 2 from the perspective of the device receiving the interference measurements.
As to Claim 9:
Chay teaches:
The control circuitry calculates the first interference timing based on each of offset information of the signal detection timing, information of duration of the frequency hopping signal, and information of a cycle in which the frequency hopping signal is detected
Chay teaches that the “interference characteristics” reported by a wireless device may include “an interference start time”, “an interference burst length”, and “an interference duty cycle” (Chay, 0040).
Here, “interference start time” maps to “the signal detection timing”,
“interference burst length” maps to “duration of the frequency hopping signal”, and
“an interference duty cycle” maps to “a cycle in which the frequency hopping signal is detected”.
As to Claim 10:
Chay teaches:
In a case where information regarding a second interference timing at which the another wireless communication device interferes with the plurality of frequency hopping signals is described in information transmitted from the another wireless communication device that receives the frame, the control circuitry calculates a second interference timing on a basis of the information regarding the second interference timing
In Fig. 6 in Chay, a user device identifies interference information that includes an “Interference Interval”, the “Interval between two successive periods of interference” which “enables reporting of periodic interference” (Chay, Table 1). Fig. 7 then describes the access point’s response to receiving the interference information from the UE, which includes “adjust[ing] one or more of a scheduling data and modulation and coding scheme data for the user device” (Chay, 0046).
In describing Fig. 4, Chay also clarifies that there may be other “user device(s) 120” that report interference data to an “AP 102” via the “WiFi STA 406” (Chay, 0037).
As to Claim 11:
Chay teaches:
The control circuitry performs control to transmit the frame while avoiding the second interference timing
In Fig. 6 in Chay, a user device identifies interference information that includes an “Interference Interval”, the “Interval between two successive periods of interference” which “enables reporting of periodic interference” (Chay, Table 1). Fig. 7 then describes the access point’s response to receiving the interference information from the UE, which includes “adjust[ing] one or more of a scheduling data and modulation and coding scheme data for the user device” (Chay, 0046).
Claim(s) 3-5 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chay (US 2018/0324618 A1) in view of Zhou (US 2023/0283650 A1) and further in view of Lopez et al. (US 12,463,706 B2, hereinafter “Lopez”).
As to Claims 3 and 16:
The combination of Chay and Zhou does not explicitly disclose:
Construct the frame to insert a silent period at the first interference timing
However, Lopez does describe a method to mitigate interference between two streams of data that coincide in the physical layer.
Specifically, Lopez teaches:
Construct the frame to insert a silent period at the first interference timing
Lopez describes “controlling interference mitigation based on that a data field of the physical layer packet is empty for the first type user” (Lopez, col. 3, lines 21-23).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Lopez’s practice of inserting blank frames into a data stream experiencing interference into Chay’s method for detecting and mitigating Bluetooth interference. As Lopez states, “[o]ne advantage of this approach is that the first type user experiences low (or no) interference from the second stream” (Lopez, col. 7, lines 11-12).
Claim 16 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 3 from the perspective of the device receiving the interference measurements.
As to Claim 4:
Chay teaches:
Suppress transmission power
Chay describes a wireless device sending “interference characteristics” that include “a recommended maximum transmit power” (Chay, 0016-0017).
The combination of Chay and Zhou does not explicitly disclose:
The silent period
However, Lopez does teach:
The silent period
Lopez describes “controlling interference mitigation based on that a data field of the physical layer packet is empty for the first type user” (Lopez, col. 3, lines 21-23).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Lopez’s practice of inserting blank frames into a data stream experiencing interference into Chay’s method for detecting and mitigating Bluetooth interference. As Lopez states, “[o]ne advantage of this approach is that the first type user experiences low (or no) interference from the second stream” (Lopez, col. 7, lines 11-12).
As to Claims 5 and 17:
The combination of Chay and Zhou does not explicitly disclose:
Information indicating that the frame includes the silent period in header information of the frame
However, Lopez does teach:
Information indicating that the frame includes the silent period in header information of the frame
Lopez states that “the method further comprises transmitting an announcement indicative of that the data field of the physical layer packet is empty for the first stream” and that “the announcement is comprised in ... a header field of the physical layer packet” (Lopez, col. 2, lines 47-53).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Lopez’s practice of inserting blank frames into a data stream experiencing interference into Chay’s method for detecting and mitigating Bluetooth interference. As Lopez states, “[o]ne advantage of this approach is that the first type user experiences low (or no) interference from the second stream” (Lopez, col. 7, lines 11-12).
Claim 17 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 5 from the perspective of the device receiving the interference measurements.
Claim(s) 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chay (US 2018/0324618 A1) in view of Zhou (US 2023/0283650 A1) and further in view of Adachi et al. (US 2018/0007561 A1, hereinafter “Adachi”).
As to Claims 6 and 18:
The combination of Chay and Zhou does not explicitly disclose:
The control circuitry performs control to construct the frame such that the first interference timing is a timing at which a boundary of a MAC layer protocol data unit (MPDU) is reached
However, Adachi does describe a method to set the network allocation vector for a transmission at the frame boundary in the MAC layer.
Specifically, Adachi teaches:
The control circuitry performs control to construct the frame such that the first interference timing is a timing at which a boundary of a MAC layer protocol data unit (MPDU) is reached
Adachi teaches that “the term during which the medium is virtually regarded as being in the busy state is called a Network Allocation Vector (NAV)”, later clarifying that “The NAV is set after the end of the MAC frame” which “prevent[s] the communication of the other terminals from being interfered” (Adachi, 0072, 0114).
Here, “a Network Allocation Vector (NAV)” maps to “the first interference timing”, and
“the end of the MAC frame” corresponds to “a boundary of a MAC layer protocol data unit (MPDU) is reached”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Adachi’s practice of aligning the MAC frame boundary with potential interference into Chay’s method for mitigating interference. In Adachi’s words, this “prevent[s] the other terminals from being interfered” (Adachi, 0114).
Claim 18 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 6 from the perspective of the device receiving the interference measurements.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chay (US 2018/0324618 A1) in view of Zhou (US 2023/0283650 A1) and further in view of Jiang et al. (US 10,721,026 B2, hereinafter “Jiang”).
As to Claims 7 and 19:
The combination of Chay and Zhou does not explicitly disclose:
The control circuitry performs control to configure the frame as a MAC layer protocol data unit (A-MPDU) aggregated
However, Jiang1 does describe a method to adapt WLAN communications to avoid interference with Bluetooth devices.
Specifically, Jiang1 teaches:
The control circuitry performs control to configure the frame as a MAC layer protocol data unit (A-MPDU) aggregated
Jiang1 teaches that a “client state sends signals to the AP to indicate to the AP to stop sending aggregate data units, such as aggregate media access control (MAC) protocol data units (A-MPDUs)” (Jiang1 col. 3, lines 39-42).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Jiang1’s use of an aggregated MAC PDU into Chay’s method for deconflicting Bluetooth and Wi-Fi signals. The aggregated MAC-PDU condenses packets together, making them less likely to conflict with other traffic on the shared band.
Claim 19 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 7 from the perspective of the device receiving the interference measurements.
As to Claim 8:
The combination of Chay and Zhou does not explicitly disclose:
The control circuitry includes information regarding the first interference timing in a delimiter portion of the A-MPDU
However, Jiang1 does separately teach:
The control circuitry includes information regarding the first interference timing in a ... A-MPDU
Jiang1 teaches that a “client state sends signals to the AP to indicate to the AP to stop sending aggregate data units, such as aggregate media access control (MAC) protocol data units (A-MPDUs)” (Jiang1 col. 3, lines 39-42). Jiang1 also clarifies that this to prevent “interference between the multiple systems” (Jiang1, col. 3, line 12).
And:
A delimiter portion of the A-MPDU
Fig. 2A of Jiang1 shows that “an aggregate MPDU (A-MPDU) ... aggregates multiple MPDU delimiter fields 253 [in Fig. 2A], each MPDU delimiter field 253 followed by a respective MPDU 255” (Jiang1, col. 7, lines 31-34).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the delimiter field of the A-MPDU described in Jiang1 to communicate the flow control information Jiang1 describes sending in a A-MPDU because the delimiter field applies to each of the aggregated PDUs, so sending it once in the delimiter field will save overhead. Moreover, it would be obvious to incorporate this construction into Chay’s method to deconflict Wi-Fi and Bluetooth traffic because the aggregated MAC-PDU condenses packets together, making them less likely to conflict with other traffic on the shared band.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chay (US 2018/0324618 A1) in view of Zhou (US 2023/0283650 A1) and further in view of Narula et al. (US 2022/0210735 A1, hereinafter “Narula”).
As to Claim 12:
Chay teaches:
Avoiding the second interference timing
In Fig. 6 in Chay, a user device identifies interference information that includes an “Interference Interval”, the “Interval between two successive periods of interference” which “enables reporting of periodic interference” (Chay, Table 1). Fig. 7 then describes the access point’s response to receiving the interference information from the UE, which includes “adjust[ing] one or more of a scheduling data and modulation and coding scheme data for the user device” (Chay, 0046).
In describing Fig. 4, Chay also clarifies that there may be other “user device(s) 120” that report interference data to an “AP 102” via the “WiFi STA 406” (Chay, 0037).
Here, “adjust[ing] ... a scheduling data” maps to “avoiding the second interference timing”.
The combination of Chay and Zhou does not explicitly disclose:
Retransmit the frame that needs to be retransmitted
However, Narula does describe a method to mitigate interference between WiFi and Bluetooth signals.
Specifically, Narula teaches:
Retransmit the frame that needs to be retransmitted
Narula states that “packets are automatically retransmitted if not acknowledged, allowing for correction of a Bluetooth network link that is subject to interference” (Narula, 0075).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Narula’s practice of retransmitting packets to ensure the integrity of a Bluetooth link into Chay’s method for mitigating Bluetooth interference. As Narula states, this “allow[s] for correction of a Bluetooth network link that is subject to interference” (Narula, 0075).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Peter Welte whose telephone number is (703)756-5965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, EST.
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, Chirag G Shah can be reached at (571) 272-3144. 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.
BENJAMIN PETER WELTE
Examiner
Art Unit 2477
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights