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 IDS document submitted on 02/15/2026 has been received and considered.
Foreign priority to Japanese patent application JP2021-138899, dated 08/27/2021, and PCT application JP2022/010203, dated 03/09/2022. Certified copies of the relevant priority documents have been received; however, they are in Japanese. English copies of the priority documents are necessary to perfect foreign priority.
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.
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: “a detection unit”, “a communication control unit”, and “a transmission unit” in claims 1-12, “a reception unit” and “a communication control unit” in claims 14-19¸ the “detection unit” in claims 16-18, and the “transmission unit” in claim 17.
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.
Paragraph 0306 of the Applicant’s disclosure states that “[t]he series of processing described above can be executed by hardware and also can be executed by software. In a case where the series of processing is executed by software, a program included in the software is installed from a program recording medium to a computer incorporated in dedicated hardware, a general-purpose personal computer, or the like” (Specification, 0306). Accordingly, the Examiner interprets the claimed “units” as some combination of “dedicated hardware” and “software” that performs the claimed functions.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 13-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Freda et al. (US 2013/0163543 A1, hereinafter “Freda”).
As to Claim 1, 13, 14, and 20:
Freda describes a method to determine different carriers that a wireless device can use simultaneously.
Specifically, Freda teaches:
A detection unit that detects a frequency hopping signal from a frequency hopping communication system that operates periodically
Freda teaches that “the eNB” may acquire “sensing results that may predict the availability of the channel” (Freda, 0178). Freda also teaches that “the primary user of the channel ... may allow the use of LE channel for a particular period of time”, i.e. the “frequency hopping signal ... operates periodically” (Freda, 0178).
A communication control unit that predicts a first interference timing at which the frequency hopping signal interferes from a signal detection timing at which the frequency hopping signal is detected
Freda teaches that “the eNB” may have “[k]nowledge of the availability of the LE channel” that is “obtained through ... sensing results that may predict the availability of the channel” (Freda, 0178).
Here, the “LE [low-energy]” signal is analogous to “the frequency hopping signal”.
A transmission unit that transmits a frame while avoiding the first interference timing
Freda describes “coexistence gaps in the transmission on the LE band” which exist to ensure that “a transmission unit ... transmits a frame while avoiding the first interference timing” (Freda, 0181).
Claim 13 contains substantially the same limitations as Claim 1 as well as requiring:
A wireless communication device is configured
Fig. 1A in Freda depicts “WTRUs 102a, 102, 102c, [and] 102d”, each of which “may be any type of device configured to operate and/or communicate in a wireless environment” (Freda, 0044).
Claim 14 describes the other (receiving) device that communicates with the transmitting device in Claim 1 and does not introduce any new functionality beyond the disclosure from Freda cited above.
Claim 20 describes a method which includes the steps performed by the device in Claim 14 as well as requiring:
A wireless communication device is configured
Fig. 1A in Freda depicts “WTRUs 102a, 102, 102c, [and] 102d”, each of which “may be any type of device configured to operate and/or communicate in a wireless environment” (Freda, 0044).
As to Claim 2:
Freda teaches:
The communication control unit performs control to include information regarding the first interference timing in the frame and transmit the information to another wireless communication device
Freda states that “the eNB may change the configuration of the burst mode by sending an updated MAC CE to change the above configuration parameters” and then clarifies that “[t]he burst may be scheduled by the eNB based on known availability of the LE channel at a particular time” (Freda, 0178).
Here, “an updated MAC CE” that “change[s] the configuration of the burst mode” corresponds to “includ[ing] information regarding the first interference timing in the frame”.
As to Claim 3:
Freda teaches:
The communication control unit performs control to construct the frame to insert a silent period at the first interference timing
Freda states that “the eNB may change the configuration of the burst mode by sending an updated MAC CE to change the above configuration parameters” and then clarifies that “[t]he burst may be scheduled by the eNB based on known availability of the LE channel at a particular time”(Freda, 0178).
Here, “schedul[ing]” “[t]he burst” maps to “construct[ing] the frame to insert a silent period”, and the “burst” “based on known availability of the LE channel” maps to “a silent period at the first interference timing”.
As to Claim 4:
Freda teaches:
The communication control circuit performs control to suspend transmission of the frame while suppressing transmission power in the silent period
Freda teaches that “[c]oexistence ... may be achieved through coexistence gaps” (Freda, 0181). Freda also clarifies that “power restrictions in the LE bands may be imposed on an eNB/HeNB when using a particular SuppCC” and that “[t]hese power restrictions may come from coexistence measures” (Freda, 0132).
As to Claim 15:
Freda teaches:
The communication control unit extracts information regarding the first interference timing from the information regarding coexistence, and performs control to transmit the second frame addressed to the another wireless communication device on a basis of information regarding the first interference timing
Freda states that “the eNB may change the configuration of the burst mode by sending an updated MAC CE to change the above configuration parameters” and then clarifies that “[t]he burst may be scheduled by the eNB based on known availability of the LE channel at a particular time” (Freda, 0178).
Here, “the configuration of the burst mode” maps to “information regarding the first interference timing”, and
“chang[ing] the configuration of the burst mode” corresponds to “performs control to transmit the second frame”.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freda (US 2013/0163543 A1) in view of Zhu et al. (US 2020/0205105 A1, hereinafter “Zhu”).
As to Claim 5:
Freda does not explicitly disclose:
The communication control unit includes information indicating that the frame includes the silent period in header information of the frame
However, Zhu does teach:
The communication control unit includes information indicating that the frame includes the silent period in header information of the frame
Zhu describes “MAC headers” for “[f]orcing a group of stations to defer their transmissions” (Zhu, 0027).
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 Zhu’s practice of including information to silence certain devices in a MAC header into Freda’s method for deconflicting a frequency hopping channel. The MAC layer packets in Freda already contain headers, so it would be efficient and effective to use that header to indicate when transmission should and should not occur.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freda (US 2013/0163543 A1) in view of Bi et al. (US 2016/0094322 A1, hereinafter “Bi”).
As to Claim 6:
Freda teaches:
A MAC layer protocol data unit (MPDU)
Freda describes a “MAC PDU subheader” which a base station can use to change a UE’s aggregation parameters.
Freda does not explicitly disclose:
The communication control circuit performs control to construct the frame such that the first interference timing is a timing at which a boundary of a ... data unit ... is reached
However, Bi does describe a method for a Bluetooth device to minimize interference by scheduling transmissions at the boundary of LTE subframes.
Specifically, Bi teaches:
The communication control circuit performs control to construct the frame such that the first interference timing is a timing at which a boundary of a ... data unit ... is reached
Bi describes “dynamic scheduling” to “avoid collisions and/or interference” by “using the LTE decision point knowledge and knowing the subframe boundary, and LTE frame structure” (Bi, 0019, 0026).
Here, the “subframe boundary” is analogous to “a boundary of a ... data unit”.
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 Bi’s practice of aligning one device’s transmissions with the frame boundaries of the other device’s transmissions to minimize interference. The frame boundary does not contain meaningful data, making it an obvious time for another device to transmit without causing interference.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freda (US 2013/0163543 A1) in view of Jiang et al. (US 10,721,026 B2, hereinafter “Jiang”).
As to Claim 7:
Freda does not explicitly disclose:
The communication control unit 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 communication control unit 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 Freda’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.
As to Claim 8:
Freda does not explicitly disclose:
The communication control unit includes information regarding the first interference timing in a delimiter portion of the A-MPDU
However, Jiang1 does separately teach:
The communication control circuit 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 Freda’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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freda (US 2013/0163543 A1) in view of Takeuchi et al. (US 2025/0081224 A1, hereinafter “Takeuchi”).
As to Claim 9:
Freda teaches:
The communication control unit calculates the first interference timing on a basis of offset information of the signal detection timing
Freda teaches that “coexistence decisions” may be made based on “sensing results that may predict the availability pattern of the channel”. Here, “sensing results” of “the availability pattern of the channel” correspond to “offset information of the signal detection timing” (Freda, 0178).
The frequency hopping signal
Freda describes using “coexistence gaps” for “LE channels” (Freda, 0181). A “LE [low-energy]” signal is analogous to a “frequency hopping signal”.
Freda does not explicitly disclose:
Information of duration of the ... signal
Information of a cycle in which the ... signal is detected
However, Takeuchi does describe a method for a device to calculate numeric characteristics of interference.
Specifically, Takeuchi teaches:
Information of duration of the ... signal
Takeuchi describes a “interference period estimation unit” that “successively computes a duration time” of the interference (Takeuchi, 0122).
Information of a cycle in which the ... signal is detected
Takeuchi describes a “interference period estimation unit” that “successively computes ... an intermittence cycle” of the interference (Takeuchi, 0122).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the interference information taught in Freda include the signal duration and cycle information for an interference signal described in Takeuchi. Knowing the duration and cycle of a Bluetooth signal can help a device to better avoid simultaneous transmission in the future.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freda (US 2013/0163543 A1) in view of Dennis et al. (US 2022/0094390 A1, hereinafter “Dennis”).
As to Claim 10:
Freda does not explicitly disclose:
In a case where information regarding a second interference timing at which the another wireless communication device interferes with the frequency hopping signal is described in information transmitted from the another wireless communication device that receives the frame, the communication control unit calculates the second interference timing on a basis of the information regarding the second interference timing
However, Dennis does teach a method for a device to predict future interference between Bluetooth and Wi-Fi signals.
Specifically, Dennis teaches:
In a case where information regarding a second interference timing at which the another wireless communication device interferes with the frequency hopping signal is described in information transmitted from the another wireless communication device that receives the frame, the communication control unit calculates the second interference timing on a basis of the information regarding the second interference timing
Dennis describes a “frequency interference prediction system” that “may utilize data from another frequency interference prediction system to determine ... [a] future time when interference is predicted” (Dennis, 0020).
Here, “data from another frequency interference prediction system” maps to “information regarding a second interference timing”, and
“another frequency interference system” corresponds to “the another wireless communication device”.
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 Dennis’ practice of modifying a transmission time based on interference data from another device into Freda’s method for avoiding interference. If other devices using the shared channel can also detect on the shared channel, it makes sense to leverage that data for coexistence.
As to Claim 11:
Freda does not explicitly disclose:
The communication control unit performs control to transmit the frame while avoiding the second interference timing
However, Dennis does teach:
The communication control unit performs control to transmit the frame while avoiding the second interference timing
Dennis describes a “frequency interference prediction system” that “may utilize the prediction of whether a specific frequency channel will have interference at a future time to create a schedule detailing when a frequency channel should be used” (Dennis, 0015).
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 Dennis’ practice of modifying a transmission time based on interference data from another device into Freda’s method for avoiding interference. If other devices using the shared channel can also detect on the shared channel, it makes sense to leverage that data for coexistence.
As to Claim 12:
Freda teaches:
The communication control unit performs control to retransmit the frame that needs to be retransmitted
Freda states that if “a retransmission is scheduled on the SuppCC, this retransmission may be performed by a type 0, 1, or 2 adaptive retransmission” (Freda, 0171).
Freda does not explicitly disclose:
The communication control unit performs control ... while avoiding the second interference timing
However, Dennis does teach:
The communication control unit performs control ... while avoiding the second interference timing
Dennis describes a “frequency interference prediction system” that “may utilize the prediction of whether a specific frequency channel will have interference at a future time to create a schedule detailing when a frequency channel should be used” (Dennis, 0015). This schedule can also “utilize data from another frequency interference prediction system to determine ... [a] future time when interference is predicted” (Dennis, 0020).
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 Dennis’ practice of modifying a transmission time based on interference data from another device into Freda’s method for avoiding interference. If other devices using the shared channel can also detect interference channel, it makes sense to leverage that data for coexistence.
As to Claim 16:
Freda does not explicitly disclose:
The communication control unit operates a detection unit that detects the frequency hopping signal in a case where data addressed to the another wireless communication device is detected, and predicts a second interference timing at which the communication control unit periodically interferes with the frequency hopping signal
However, Dennis does teach:
The communication control unit operates a detection unit that detects the frequency hopping signal in a case where data addressed to the another wireless communication device is detected, and predicts a second interference timing at which the communication control unit periodically interferes with the frequency hopping signal
Dennis describes a “frequency interference prediction system” that “may utilize data from another frequency interference prediction system to determine ... [a] future time when interference is predicted” (Dennis, 0020).
Here, the “another frequency interference prediction system” corresponds to “a detection unit that detects the frequency hopping signal”, and
“[a] future time when interference is predicted” corresponds to “a second interference timing at which the communication control unit periodically interferes with the frequency hopping signal”.
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 Dennis’ practice of modifying a transmission time based on interference data from another device into Freda’s method for avoiding interference. If other devices using the shared channel can also detect interference channel, it makes sense to leverage that data for coexistence.
As to Claim 17:
Freda does not explicitly disclose:
A transmission unit that transmits the second frame in which information regarding the second interference timing is described
However, Dennis does teach:
A transmission unit that transmits the second frame in which information regarding the second interference timing is described
Dennis describes a “frequency interference prediction system” that “may utilize the prediction of whether a specific frequency channel will have interference at a future time to create a schedule detailing when a frequency channel should be used” (Dennis, 0015).
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 Dennis’ practice of modifying a transmission time based on interference data from another device into Freda’s method for avoiding interference. If other devices using the shared channel can also detect interference channel, it makes sense to leverage that data for coexistence.
As to Claim 18:
Freda teaches:
ACK information
Freda teaches that a “WTRU may send an ACK to the received MAC CE” (Freda, 0153).
Freda does not explicitly disclose:
The communication control unit generates the second frame in which an element in which information regarding the second interference timing is described is configured and added to ... information
However, Dennis does teach:
The communication control unit generates the second frame in which an element in which information regarding the second interference timing is described is configured and added to ... information
Dennis describes a “frequency interference prediction system” that “may utilize data from another frequency interference prediction system to determine ... [a] future time when interference is predicted” (Dennis, 0020).
Here, “data from another frequency interference prediction system” that “may [be] utilize[d]” maps to “information regarding the second interference timing is described is configured and added to ... information”.
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 Dennis’ practice of modifying a transmission time based on interference data from another device into Freda’s method for avoiding interference. If other devices using the shared channel can also detect interference channel, it makes sense to leverage that data for coexistence.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freda (US 2013/0163543 A1) in view of Dennis (US 2022/0094390 A1) and further in view of Jiang et al. (US 2023/0011624 A1, hereinafter “Jiang2”).
As to Claim 19:
The combination of Freda and Dennis does not explicitly disclose:
The communication control unit describes the information regarding the second interference timing in a case where there is undelivered data in data addressed to the communication control unit itself
However, Jiang2 does describe a method for reporting interference information when a transmission fails.
Specifically, Jiang2 teaches:
The communication control unit describes the information regarding the second interference timing in a case where there is undelivered data in data addressed to the communication control unit itself
Jiang2 describes “determining occurrence of a communication failure” and subsequently “sending coexistence interference indication information for indicating the communication failure related to a coexistence interference problem” (Jiang2, 0008).
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 Jiang2’s practice of reporting an interference problem when transmission fails into Freda’s method for facilitating coexistence between Wi-Fi and Bluetooth transmissions. If a transmission fails, this is an obvious indicator of severe interference, so it makes sense to report it to prevent future transmission failures.
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 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.
/B.P.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2477
/CHIRAG G SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights