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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on July 18, 2024 has been
considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feuersaenger et al. (US 2015/0049705 A1, hereinafter "Feuersaenger") in view of Ryu et al. (US 20160323888 A1, hereinafter "Ryu").
Regarding claim 1, Feuersaenger teaches a method, comprising:
detecting, by a first device (mobile terminal (also referred to as a UE) [0192], FIG. 6, example of UE with coexistence interference) comprising a station (STA), an interference event comprising a transmission that will interfere or is interfering with a communication session of the STA by a second device (FIG. 1, eNodeB, also referred to as base station and eNB) comprising an access point (AP) or another station (STA) (the user equipment detects whether or not there is an interference condition (read as interference event) during its communication with the base station, where the interference condition indicated via PIDC as shown in FIG. 11, S1 [0192]);
transmitting, by the first device to the second device, an identification of the interference event (the user equipment transmits a message including the PIDC, shown as M(PIDC) in S2 of FIG. 11, to the base station [0192]);
Feuersaenger does not teach:
receiving, by the first device from the second device, a selection of an operation mode of a plurality of modes, wherein the selection is responsive to the identified the interference event; and
continuing the communication session, by the first device with the second device, utilizing the selected operation mode.
In analogous art, Ryu teaches:
receiving, by the first device from the second device, a selection of an operation mode (MAC algorithm) of a plurality of modes, wherein the selection is responsive to the identified the interference event (the serving base station (second device) uses the interference information from the UE to select a MAC algorithm and inform the UE of the selected MAC algorithm [0008]); and
continuing the communication session, by the first device with the second device, utilizing the selected operation mode (the communications between the devices proceed using the selected MAC algorithm, continuing communication using the selected MAC algorithm [0008-0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the dynamic MAC algorithm techniques taught by Ryu into the wireless communication network of Feuersaenger in order to provide benefits including more flexible channel access and improved control and reduction of interference, consistent with routine optimization of known wireless network techniques (Ryu, [0007]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Feuersaenger and Ryu, specifically Feuersaenger teaches wherein the interference event comprises a transmission generated by transmission hardware of the first device (FIG. 6 shows examples of interference between coexisting transceivers of a user equipment, where the dashed lines with arrows show transmission direction as well as interference due to transmission [0087]).
Regarding claim 3, Feuersaenger does not teach wherein the interference event comprises a transmission generated by another device.
In analogous art, Ryu teaches wherein the interference event comprises a transmission generated by another device (the UE (first device) determines that transmissions from a neighbor base station (another device) interfere with communications between the UE and its serving base station [0008-0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the dynamic MAC algorithm techniques taught by Ryu into the wireless communication network of Feuersaenger in order to provide benefits including more flexible channel access and improved control and reduction of interference, consistent with routine optimization of known wireless network techniques (Ryu, [0007]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Feuersaenger and Ryu, specifically Feuersaenger, teaches wherein detecting the interference event further comprises detecting, prior to the interference event, that the interfering transmission will occur (the UE determines, from its configuration to a second resource (such as FIG. 6), that communication on the second resource will interfere with communication on the first resource (such as the communication between the UE and the eNodeB in FIG. 1). In other words, an interference condition may be detected at the UE prior to the UE communicating with another device [0126-0127]).
Regarding claim 7, Feuersaenger does not explicitly teach wherein continuing the communication session utilizing the selected operation mode further comprises at least one of the following:
utilizing, by the first device, a clear channel assessment (CCA) level or maximum allowed transmit power level indicated by the second device for transmissions of the communication session;
utilizing, by the first device, a maximum allowed physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) indicated by the second device for transmissions of the communication session;
utilizing, by the first device, a preemption operation for physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) or transmission opportunity (TXOP) transmissions during an identified interference duration; or
utilizing, by the first device, a secondary communication channel.
In analogous art, Ryu teaches wherein continuing the communication session utilizing the selected operation mode further comprises at least one of the following:
utilizing, by the first device, a clear channel assessment (CCA) level or maximum allowed transmit power level indicated by the second device for transmissions of the communication session;
utilizing, by the first device, a maximum allowed physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) indicated by the second device for transmissions of the communication session;
utilizing, by the first device, a preemption operation for physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) or transmission opportunity (TXOP) transmissions during an identified interference duration; or
utilizing, by the first device, a secondary communication channel (dynamically selecting a second MAC algorithm for communications over a second channel of the wireless system in response to detected interference on the first channel [0009-0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the dynamic MAC algorithm techniques taught by Ryu into the wireless communication network of Feuersaenger in order to provide benefits including more flexible channel access and improved control and reduction of interference, consistent with routine optimization of known wireless network techniques (Ryu, [0007]).
Regarding claim 8, Feuersaenger does not teach wherein the selected operation mode is selected based on a signal strength of the interference event.
In analogous art, Ryu teaches wherein the selected operation mode is selected based on a signal strength of the interference event (The UE monitors and measures interference and signal quality from base stations, using these to select a channel parameters through which to select a MAC algorithm (operating mode) [0053-0054]. Measuring interference and signal quality involves determining the strength of the interfering signal, and the operating mode is selected based on those measurements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the dynamic MAC algorithm techniques taught by Ryu into the wireless communication network of Feuersaenger in order to provide benefits including more flexible channel access and improved control and reduction of interference, consistent with routine optimization of known wireless network techniques (Ryu, [0007]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Feuersaenger and Ryu, specifically Feuersaenger, teaches: further comprising transmitting, by the first device to the second device, an identification of an end of the interference event (the UE (first device) reports an interference resolution (end of the interference event) to the base station (second device) [0134]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Feuersaenger and Ryu, specifically Feuersaenger, teaches:
wherein the transmission that will interfere or is interfering with a communication session of the first device with a second device is on a first communication channel (the mobile terminal (first device) detects an interference condition between communications with the base station (second device) via a first resource, which corresponds to a first communication channel [0156]); and
wherein transmitting the identification of the interference event further comprises transmitting the identification using a second communication channel (The mobile terminal transmits an indication of the interference condition to the base station via separate control channels, including an uplink distributed control channel (UL-DCCH), a power headroom report (PHR/e-PHR), a channel quality indicator (CQI), or a buffer status report (BSR), one of which can perform as the second communication channel [0157-0160]).
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 1, including a first device (mobile terminal (also referred to as a UE) [0151], FIG. 15, UE) comprising a wireless station (STA), the device comprising: a transceiver (the mobile terminal includes a transmitting circuit and a receiving circuit [0151]); and
a processor (the mobile terminal includes a processor [0151]), all taught by Feuersaenger.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 10.
Claim(s) 5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Feuersaenger and Ryu, and in view of Zhang et al (US 20240348294 A1, hereinafter "Zhang").
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Feuersaenger and Ryu does not teach wherein continuing the communication session utilizing the selected operation mode further comprises reducing, by the first device, a modulation and coding scheme rate for transmissions of the communication session.
In analogous art, Zhang teaches wherein continuing the communication session utilizing the selected operation mode further comprises reducing, by the first device, a modulation and coding scheme rate for transmissions of the communication session (when a signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR) falls below a threshold, a base station (second device) instructs a user equipment (first device) to reduce a modulation and coding scheme (MCS), after which further uplink transmissions are received [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the reduction of a modulation and coding scheme as taught by Zhang into the wireless communication system taught by the combination of Feuersaenger and Ryu in order to maximize UE throughput and coverage with dynamic adjustment of channel use and to monitor the interference (through SINR) in order to make these adjustments (Zhang, [0012-0013]).
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 5.
Claim(s) 6, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Feuersaenger and Ryu, and in view of Siomina et al (US 20140204866 A1, hereinafter "Siomina").
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Feuersaenger and Ryu does not teach wherein continuing the communication session utilizing the selected operation mode further comprises delaying, by the first device, one or more transmissions for an identified interference duration.
In analogous art, Siomina teaches wherein continuing the communication session utilizing the selected operation mode further comprises delaying, by the first device, one or more transmissions for an identified interference duration (a radio network node (second device) configures time-domain interference coordination patterns comprising restricted transmission subframes (interference duration) characterized by a defined length and periodicity, sending the time-domain interference coordination patterns to a wireless device (first device). The wireless device uses the configuration information to delay or restrict transmissions during the configured pattern in order to mitigate interference [0027-0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the time-domain transmission delaying taught by Siomina into the wireless communication system taught by the combination of Feuersaenger and Ryu in order to mitigate interference from neighboring cells and reduce interferences when channels are received simultaneously, improving signal quality and enabling interference mitigation (Siomina, [0003-0006]).
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bhattacharya et al (US-20240260094-A1) discloses Wireless Channel Access Using Receiver Interference Environment.
Liu et al (US-12267785-B2) discloses Pre-emptive Suppression Of Inter-cell Interference In Cellular Wireless Communication Networks.
Tsai et al (US-11283475-B1) discloses Radio Interference Detection And Dynamic Channel Bandwidth Management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALESSANDRA R WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3579. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:30.
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, UN C CHO can be reached at (571)272-7919. 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.
/A.R.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/UN C CHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413