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
This Office Action is in response to the amendments received on 01/30/2026. The amendments were able to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection cited in the previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant argues that Desai, fails to disclose "causing the WPAN sub-system to update, in an adaptive frequency hopping (AFH) channel map of the WPAN sub-system and based on an interference level, a classification of a first subset of a plurality of WPAN channels within the frequency band overlapping with a first WLAN channel of a plurality of WLAN channels within the frequency band utilized by the WLAN sub-system from a first classification to a second classification, wherein the first classification is set due to an interference of the WLAN sub-system."
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner asserts that as to claims 1 and 19, Desai discloses a method (see the abstract) comprising: receiving, from a wireless personal area network (WPAN) sub-system of a wireless device, a frequency band congestion alert indicating congestion on a frequency band (see paragraphs 0005, 0015 (“bad channel” is interpreted as a congested channel (paragraph 0034 provides more details on this subject)), 0018 (“Each of the auxiliary Bluetooth devices may communicate the channel classification report (i.e., the report of good and bad channels) to the primary Bluetooth device”, reporting the bad channels to the primary Bluetooth device is interpreted as sending a frequency band congestion alert), 0019, 0021-0022, 0034 (“An average RSSI value for an unused RF channel, which is greater than the threshold RSSI value, may indicate that an interferer is currently utilizing the RF channel. When this is the case, step 322 may indicate that the RF channel is classified as being “bad””), and 0046) shared by the WPAN sub-system and a wireless local area network (WLAN) sub-system of the wireless device (see paragraphs 0007, 0015, 0034, and 0043); causing the WPAN sub-system to update, in an adaptive frequency hopping (AFH) channel map of the WPAN sub-system (see paragraphs 0015, 0017, 0022, 0028-0029, and 0055, Figs. 3 and 4) and based on an interference level (see Figs. 2-4 and paragraphs 0042-0043 and 0053-0054), a classification of a first subset of a plurality of WPAN channels within the frequency band overlapping with a first WLAN channel of a plurality of WLAN channels within the frequency band utilized by the WLAN sub-system (see paragraphs 0007, 0015, 0029, 0034, 0043, 0050-0051, see also Figs. 3 and 4 that show the classification of the channels (classifying them as good channels or bad channels) is updated in a loop process) from a first classification to a second classification, wherein the first classification is set due to an interference of the WLAN sub-system (see paragraphs 0015, 0029, 0034, and 0041-0043 and Figs. 3 and 4); and causing the WPAN sub-system to transmit and receive data on at least the first subset of the plurality of WPAN channels (see paragraphs 0028, 0034, and 0036).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Desai et al. (hereinafter, referred to as Desai) (US 2008/0219323).
As to claims 1 and 19, Desai discloses a method (see the abstract) comprising: receiving, from a wireless personal area network (WPAN) sub-system of a wireless device, a frequency band congestion alert indicating congestion on a frequency band (see paragraphs 0005, 0015 (“bad channel” is interpreted as a congested channel (paragraph 0034 provides more details on this subject)), 0018 (“Each of the auxiliary Bluetooth devices may communicate the channel classification report (i.e., the report of good and bad channels) to the primary Bluetooth device”, reporting the bad channels to the primary Bluetooth device is interpreted as sending a frequency band congestion alert), 0019, 0021-0022, 0034 (“An average RSSI value for an unused RF channel, which is greater than the threshold RSSI value, may indicate that an interferer is currently utilizing the RF channel. When this is the case, step 322 may indicate that the RF channel is classified as being “bad””), and 0046) shared by the WPAN sub-system and a wireless local area network (WLAN) sub-system of the wireless device (see paragraphs 0007, 0015, 0034, and 0043); causing the WPAN sub-system to update, in an adaptive frequency hopping (AFH) channel map of the WPAN sub-system (see paragraphs 0015, 0017, 0022, 0028-0029, and 0055, Figs. 3 and 4) and based on an interference level (see Figs. 2-4 and paragraphs 0042-0043 and 0053-0054), a classification of a first subset of a plurality of WPAN channels within the frequency band overlapping with a first WLAN channel of a plurality of WLAN channels within the frequency band utilized by the WLAN sub-system (see paragraphs 0007, 0015, 0029, 0034, 0043, 0050-0051, see also Figs. 3 and 4 that show the classification of the channels (classifying them as good channels or bad channels) is updated in a loop process) from a first classification to a second classification, wherein the first classification is set due to an interference of the WLAN sub-system (see paragraphs 0015, 0029, 0034, and 0041-0043 and Figs. 3 and 4); and causing the WPAN sub-system to transmit and receive data on at least the first subset of the plurality of WPAN channels (see paragraphs 0028, 0034, and 0036). As to claim 19, Desai further discloses that a sub-system of a wireless device performs the method steps of the invention cited above (see Fig. 2, sub-system 200 and paragraphs 0021 and 0022). Desai discloses that the sub-system comprises a processor (see Fig. 2, block 282) and a memory (see Fig. 2, block 272) comprising a congestion management component, wherein the congestion management component when executed by the processor is to perform the method steps cited above (see paragraphs 0022-0023). As to claim 19, no patentable weight has been given to the limitations cited in the preamble of the claim.
As to claims 2 and 3, Desai discloses that the frequency band congestion alert is transmitted by the WPAN sub-system in response satisfying a channel classification threshold criterion (see paragraphs 0034-0035, RSSI threshold is interpreted as the channel classification threshold criterion, see also paragraph 0043). As to claim 3, since this claim only provides further information on an optional limitation (i.e., the retransmission threshold criterion) no patentable weight has been given to the limitations cited in this claim.
As to claim 5, Desai discloses causing the WPAN sub-system to update, in the AFH channel map of the WPAN sub-system, the classification of the first subset of the plurality of WPAN channels (see paragraphs 0015, 0022, 0029, 0034, 0043 and 0055) comprises: for each WPAN channel of the first subset, classifying a respective WPAN channel with a second classification, the second classification indicating that an interference level is lower than a specific threshold (see Figs. 3 and 4, and paragraphs 0034, 0038, 0042, and 0054).
As to claim 9, Desai discloses causing the WPAN sub-system to update the classification of the first subset responsive to determining that the first subset is classified in the AFH channel map with a first classification (see paragraphs 0034, 0043, 0055, Figs. 3 and 4).
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.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai, in view of Gonikberg et al. (hereinafter, referred to as Gonikberg) (US 2008/0279138).
As to claims 6 and 20, Desai discloses all the subject matters claimed in claims 6 and 20, except for transmitting, by the WLAN sub-system, a clear to send to self (CTS-2-Self) frame on the first WLAN channel during a time slot assigned the WPAN sub-system for WPAN activity; and interrupting WLAN activity on the first WLAN channel for the WPAN activity. Gonikberg, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a method for WPAN/WLAN coexistence (see paragraphs 0018, 0035, 0040, and 0145, Bluetooth is an example of WPAN). Gonikberg discloses transmitting, by the WLAN sub-system, a clear to send to self (CTS-2-Self) frame on the first WLAN channel during a time slot assigned the WPAN sub-system for WPAN activity; and interrupting WLAN activity on the first WLAN channel for the WPAN activity (see paragraphs 0145-0146). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the teachings of Desai, as suggested by Gonikberg, in order to reduce the interference in the communication system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, an 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10-18 and allowed.
Conclusion
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 LEILA MALEK whose telephone number is (571)272-8731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
LEILA . MALEK
Examiner
Art Unit 2632
/LEILA MALEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights