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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the communications filed March 17, 2026. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 16-28, 33, 36, 40 and 42 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings received on March 17, 2026 are acceptable.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 13, line 4, it appears that the second occurrence of “receiver” should be “transmitter.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, line 7, “an” should be inserted before “indication”;
in claim 1, line 10, “the interference signal” should be “the at least one interference signal”;
in claim 4, line 2, “further” should be inserted before “comprises”;
in claim 14, lines 1-2, “the interference signal” should be “the at least one interference signal”;
in claim 14, line 2, “a second frequency range” should be “the second frequency range” (see claim 1, lines 8-9);
in claim 14, lines 2-3, “selecting the code rate” should be “encoding data using the code rate” (see claim 1, lines 13);
in claim 40, line 9, “an” should be inserted before “indication”;
in claim 40, line 12, “the interference signal” should be “the at least one interference signal”;
dependent claim(s) are objected to under the same ground(s) as the claim(s) from which it depends .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4, 6, 9, 10, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 2, “determining the second bandwidth based on the at least one interference signal” on lines 1-2 lacks antecedent basis in claim 1. “Wherein” on line 1 suggests that “determining the second bandwidth based on the at least one interference signal” has antecedent basis but claim 1 does not recite “determining the second bandwidth based on the at least one interference signal.” Instead, claim 1 recites “determining a second bandwidth based on indication from the second wireless communication device” (see lines 7-8).
Furthermore, it is unclear how determining the second bandwidth based “receiving an indication of the second bandwidth from the second wireless communication device” on lines 2-3 relates to determining the second bandwidth “based on indication from the second wireless communication device of at least one interference signal within a second frequency range and within at least one portion of the first frequency range” in claim 1, lines 7-8. For example, are there two “indications from the second wireless communication device” or is the “indication” in claim 2 referring to the “indication” in claim 1?
With regard to claim 3, it is unclear how the recited limitation relates to claim 1, lines 7-10 since claim 3 recites the same/common limitations (see “indication of a signal to noise ratio (SNR), signal to interference ratio (SIR) or signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) in at least a portion of the first frequency range” on lines 2-4) as in claim 1, lines 11-12.
With regard to claim 6, “determining the second bandwidth based on the at least one interference signal” on lines 1-2 lacks antecedent basis in claim 1. “Wherein” on line 1 suggests that “determining the second bandwidth based on the at least one interference signal” has antecedent basis but claim 1 does not recite “determining the second bandwidth based on the at least one interference signal.” Instead, claim 1 recites “determining a second bandwidth based on indication from the second wireless communication device” (see lines 7-8).
Furthermore, it is unclear how the second bandwidth is determined based on “detecting the at least one interference signal” in claim 6, line 3 and based on the “indication from the second wireless communication device of at least one interference signal” in claim 1, lines 7-8.
With regard to claim 9, “determining the second bandwidth based on the at least one interference signal” on lines 1-2 lacks antecedent basis in claim 1. “Wherein” on line 1 suggests that “determining the second bandwidth based on the at least one interference signal” has antecedent basis but claim 1 does not recite “determining the second bandwidth based on the at least one interference signal.” Instead, claim 1 recites “determining a second bandwidth based on indication from the second wireless communication device” (see lines 7-8).
Furthermore, it is it is unclear how the second bandwidth is determined based on “a probability of the at least one interference signal being present” in claim 9, lines 3-4 and based on the “indication from the second wireless communication device of at least one interference signal” in claim 1, lines 7-8.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the encoded data bits” on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear how the transmitting step in claim 18 relates to or differs from the transmitting step in claim 1, lines 18-19 since both steps are transmitting the encoded data.
With regard to claim 19, “determining the second bandwidth based on the at least one interference signal” on lines 1-2 lacks antecedent basis in claim 1. “Wherein” on line 1 suggests that “determining the second bandwidth based on the at least one interference signal” has antecedent basis but claim 1 does not recite “determining the second bandwidth based on the at least one interference signal.” Instead, claim 1 recites “determining a second bandwidth based on indication from the second wireless communication device” (see lines 7-8).
Furthermore, it is it is unclear how the second bandwidth is determined based on “a probability of the at least one interference signal being present” in claim 9, lines 3-4 and based on the “indication from the second wireless communication device of at least one interference signal” in claim 1, lines 7-8.
Dependent claim(s) are rejected under the same ground(s) as the claim(s) from which it depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 20, 21, 33, 36 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lopez et al. (US Publication No. 2019/0132844 A1 originally cited the IDS submitted June 18, 2024)
With regard to claim 20, Lopez et al. discloses the claimed invention including:
receiving, from a first wireless device, a first signal in the first frequency range and having a first bandwidth (see 308 in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0050]), the first signal comprising data included encoded data bits (see “MCS” in paragraph [0035] wherein “MCS” provides encoded data bits) and the first signal comprising a wideband signal (see “broadband signal on a first frequency bandwidth” in paragraph [0035]; “broadband communication channel at a first frequency bandwidth” in paragraph [0036]; and “OFDM signal” in paragraph [0038] wherein an OFDM signal is a wideband signal);
determining at least one second frequency range based on at least one interference signal within the first frequency range, the at least one frequency signal having a bandwidth that is smaller than the first bandwidth (see 306 in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0050]), the interference signal being a narrowband signal (see “narrowband signal… on a second frequency bandwidth” in paragraph [0035] and “narrowband channel at a second frequency bandwidth in paragraph [0036]); and
decoding the encoded bits based on the at least one second frequency range (see 312 in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0051]).
With regard to claim 21, Lopez et al. discloses the claimed invention including decoding the encoded bits comprises decoding the encoded data bits using a portion of the first signal outside of the at least one second frequency range. (See paragraphs [0042] and [0051].)
With regard to claim 33, Lopez et al. discloses the claimed invention including receiving an indication of the second frequency range from the first wireless communication device. (See 306 in Fig. 3.)
With regard to claim 36, Lopez et al. discloses the claimed invention including determining the second bandwidth comprising determining the bandwidth of the at least one interference signal or determining a bandwidth impacted or affected by the at least one interference signal. (See 306 in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0050] wherein “the subset of the first bandwidth” corresponds to the “bandwidth of the at least one interference signal” in the claim.)
With regard to claim 42, Lopez et al. discloses the claimed invention including an apparatus comprising a processor and a memory, the memory containing instructions executable by the processor such that the apparatus is operable to perform the recited steps. (See Fig. 22 and paragraphs [0097]-[0099]. Also, see the rejection of claim 20 above for additional explanation of each recited step in Lopez et al.)
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.
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 20, 21, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chari et al. (US Patent No. 9,806,871 B2 originally cited in the Office Action of December 17, 2025) in view of Prismantas et al. (US Publication No. 2002/015511 A1 originally cited in the IDS submitted June 18, 2024).
With regard to claim 20, Chari et al. discloses the claimed invention/method including:
receiving a first signal (see “multicarrier signal” or “OFDM signal” in column 3, lines 42-57 and column 6, lines 52-56) in a first frequency range and having a first bandwidth (wherein it is inherent that the OFDM signal occupies a first frequency range and has a first bandwidth) wherein the first signal comprises data including encoded data bits (see column 6, lines 10-23 wherein the modulation and coding scheme (MCS) provide encoded data bits) and the first signal comprising a wideband signal (see column 3, lines 29-32 wherein an OFDM signal is a “modulated wideband signal”);
determining at least one second frequency range wherein the second frequency range has a second bandwidth smaller than the first bandwidth (wherein “subcarriers that are not processed” in column 5, lines 33-44 and column 7, lines 7-11 correspond to “at least one second frequency range”); and
decoding the encoded data bits based on the at least one second frequency range (see 180 in FIGURE 1 OR FIGURE 4).
Although Chari et al. discloses estimating the channel quality (e.g. signal to noise ratio (SNR)) for each subcarrier to determine which subcarriers to process or drop (i.e. not process) (see column 3, lines 55-57; column 4, lines 19-25; and column 5, lines 26-31), Chari et al. does not disclose that the set of dropped subcarriers is “based on at least one interference signal.” Since a channel quality metric (e.g. RSSI or SNR) is indicative of interference (see Prismantas et al., paragraphs [0020] and [0024]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the receiver of Chari et al. to mitigate interference thereby reading on to determine at least one second frequency range “based on at least one interference signal.” Furthermore, since Chari et al. discloses that OFDM systems can cope with narrowband interference (see column 3, lines 25-32), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of Chari et al. in view of Prismantas et al. to mitigate narrowband interference signals that impact the OFDM system.
With regard to claim 21, Chari et al. in view of Prismantas et al. discloses the claimed invention including decoding the encoded bits using a portion of the first signal outside the at least second frequency range. (See Chari et al., column 5, lines 37-44)
With regard to claim 25, Chari et al. in view of Prismantas et al. discloses the claimed invention including determining a LLR for each of the plurality of symbols or bits in the first signal. (See Chari et al., 442 and 443 in FIGURE 4).
With regard to claim 26, Chari et al. in view of Prismantas et al. discloses the claimed invention including the first signal comprising a plurality of subcarriers and reducing or zeroing LLRs of symbols or bits received on subcarriers within the at least one second frequency range. (See Chari et al., “erase” in 445 of FIGURE 4).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez et al. as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Xue et al. (US Publication No. 2019/0074946 A1 originally cited in the Office Action of December 17, 2025).
With regard to claim 22, Lopez et al. discloses the claimed invention except for determining the at least one second frequency range based on the at least one interference signal comprising determining a SINR of another signal received at the second wireless communication device in at least a portion of the first frequency range. Xue et al. discloses that comparison of SINR to a threshold is an indication of interference (see paragraph [0089]). Since the subset of the first bandwidth (see paragraph [0050]) corresponds to the bandwidth of the narrowband (i.e. interference) signal at the wideband receiver in Lopez et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect the interference signal using the SINR at the receiver instead of receiving an indication of the interference signal from the transmitter. Interference detection by the receiver improves the system by enabling the receiver to mitigate narrowband interference from any source, not just narrowband/interference signals that are concurrently transmitted by the transmitter.
With regard to claim 23, Lopez et al. in view of Xue et al. disclose the claimed invention including determining portions of the first frequency range where the SINR is lower than a threshold. (See Xue et al., paragraph [0089])
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez et al. as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Berens (US Patent No. 8,340,229 B2 originally cited in the Office Action of December 17, 2025). Lopez et al. discloses the claimed invention except for determining the at least one second frequency range comprises detecting the at least one interference signal in the at least one second frequency range. Berens discloses an interference reduction method that detects the bandwidth (i.e. subcarrier or frequency range) of an interfering signal. (See abstract and column 1, line 62 - column 2, line 5) Since the subset of the first bandwidth (see paragraph [0050]) corresponds to the bandwidth of the narrowband (i.e. interference) signal at the wideband receiver in Lopez et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect the interference signal at the receiver instead of receiving an indication of the interference signal from the transmitter. Interference detection by the receiver improves the system by enabling the receiver to mitigate narrowband interference from any source, not just narrowband/interference signals that are concurrently transmitted by the transmitter.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez et al. as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Molinar (US Patent No. 8,369,793 B2 originally cited in the Office Action of December 17, 2025).
With regard to claim 27, Lopez et al. discloses the claimed invention except for determining the probability of the at least one interference being present within the frequency range and sending an indication of the probability to the first wireless communication device. Molinar discloses a mobile terminal that determines the probability of the at least one interference being present (see 23 and 24 in FIG. 1 and column 4, lines 20-36) and sends an indication of the probability to the base station (see column 4, lines 6-12 and column 5, lines 4-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine the teaching of Molinar with that of Lopez et al. (i.e. for the second communication device 120 to determine the probability of interference being present in the frequency range and providing the indication of the probability to the first wireless communication device 110) in order to provide an adaptive communication system that mitigates narrowband interference from multiple sources while optimizing data transmission (see Molinar, column 1, line 66 – column 2, line 6 and column 2, lines 44-46).
With regard to claim 28, Lopez et al. in view of Molinar discloses the claimed invention including the probability of the interference signal being present comprises the probability of the at least one interference signal being present with a duration for transmitting the data. (See Molinar, column 2, lines 41-44)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 7, 14, 16, 17 and 40 are allowable if rewritten to overcome the respective claim objections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Please note that non-cited portions of the references may also read on the claim limitations. Therefore, the references should be considered in their entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Betsy Deppe whose telephone number is 571-272-3054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, 7:00 am - 3:00 pm (ET).
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, Sam Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/BETSY DEPPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights