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 .
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 10-11, 15-19, 21-26, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gandhi et al (US 2024/0291590 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 23, Gandhi discloses a first wireless device (Fig. 1, AP 110A and/or Fig. 7, network device), comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code (Fig. 7, memory 710); and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories (Fig. 7, CPU 705 coupled with memory via bus 730) and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device (Fig. 7) to:
communicate one or more messages with a second wireless device (Fig. 1, client device 115A) and a third wireless device (Fig. 1, client device 115B) via a set of frequency resources spanning a plurality of sub-bands (Figs. 1, 3, 49th and 52nd paragraphs, AP 110A communicates with client devices 115A and 115B via sub-bands of frequencies);
receive, from the second wireless device, a report indicating interference at the second wireless device on at least one sub-band of the plurality of sub-bands (49th paragraph, AP receives one or more unsafe frequency reports from one or more client devices. Each unsafe frequency report can indicate zero or more sub-bands experiencing interference, from the respective of the client device);
transmit, to the second wireless device based at least in part on the report, a control message comprising a first selected punctured bandwidth bitmap indicating that the first wireless device supports communication over a subset of frequency resources of the set of frequency resources that excludes the at least one sub-band (Fig. 3, 55th and 57th paragraphs, AP determines dynamic puncturing parameters based on the unsafe frequency reports. These dynamic puncturing parameters can include device specific parameters, e.g., different puncturing for each client device and frequency specific parameters, e.g., puncturing sub-bands or specific frequencies within one or more channels. AP may indicate to each client device the specific frequencies being punctured. The AP may use a bit mask to function specific frequencies within the affected channel);
communicate, during a time interval (Fig. 5, block 515, transmission opportunity), with the second wireless device via the subset of frequency resources based at least in part on transmitting the control message (57th paragraph and Fig. 3, AP then communicates with the client devise using punctured resources); and
communicate, during the time interval (Fig. 5, block 515, transmission opportunity), with the third wireless device via the set of frequency resources (18th and 24th paragraphs, puncturing being performed on a per-client basis. For any client devices that do not report interference, the AP may use full channel bandwidth, e.g., without puncturing, during its transmission with such client devices).
Regarding claims 2, 21, and 24, Gandhi discloses that wherein, to transmit the control message, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to: transmit, via the control message, an information element associated with the first wireless device, wherein the information element indicates the subset of frequency resources using one or more dedicated bit fields for indicating punctured bandwidths (Fig. 3, 55th and 57th paragraphs, AP determines dynamic puncturing parameters based on the unsafe frequency reports. These dynamic puncturing parameters can include device specific parameters, e.g., different puncturing for each client device and frequency specific parameters, e.g., puncturing sub-bands or specific frequencies within one or more channels. AP may indicate to each client device the specific frequencies being punctured. The AP may use a bit mask to function specific frequencies within the affected channel).
Regarding claims 3, 22, and 25, Gandhi discloses that wherein the control message indicating the subset of frequency resources comprises a wireless network management report, wherein the subset of frequency resources are indicated via one or more bit fields of the wireless network management report (Fig. 3, 55th and 57th paragraphs, AP determines dynamic puncturing parameters based on the unsafe frequency reports. These dynamic puncturing parameters can include device specific parameters, e.g., different puncturing for each client device and frequency specific parameters, e.g., puncturing sub-bands or specific frequencies within one or more channels. AP may indicate to each client device the specific frequencies being punctured. The AP may use a bit mask to function specific frequencies within the affected channel).
Regarding claims 4 and 26, Gandhi discloses that wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to: transmit, to the second wireless device, a request for information associated with the interference at the second wireless device, wherein the report is received in response to the request (20th paragraph, the report may be sent in response to an AP query, such as a query specifically to report unsafe frequencies).
Regarding claim 5, Gandhi discloses that wherein the request is transmitted in accordance with a polling periodicity (44th paragraph, client device may report the unsafe frequencies in response to a query or request from the AP).
Regarding claim 10, Gandhi discloses that wherein the report comprises a collocated interference report (alternative), a bandwidth query report (Fig. 3, blocks 305 and 320, unsafe frequency reports having sub-bands), or both (alternative).
Regarding claim 11, Gandhi discloses that wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to (Fig. 7): transmit, to the third wireless device based at least in part on a second report from the third wireless device (Fig. 3, block 310), a further control message comprising a second selected punctured bandwidth bitmap indicating that the first wireless device supports communication over the set of frequency resources (Fig. 3, blocks 325 and 330), wherein the first selected punctured bandwidth bitmap and the second selected punctured bandwidth bitmap are different (Fig. 3 and 18th paragraph, puncturing being performed on a per-client basis. Therefore, the bit mask for each client device is different).
Regarding claim 15, Gandhi discloses that wherein the interference indicated via the report (Fig. 5, block 505) comprises interference experienced by the second wireless device due to signals from an additional wireless device, future interference expected to be experienced by the second wireless device due to communications at the second wireless device associated with a different radio access technology (Fig. 1, client device 115A receives interference from cellular signal 125A transmitted by BS 105A), or both.
Regarding claim 16, Gandhi discloses that wherein the one or more messages and the control message are communicated with the second and third wireless devices via a Wi-Fi communication protocol (Fig. 1 and 17th paragraph, Wi-Fi system).
Regarding claim 17, Gandhi discloses that wherein the first wireless device comprises an access point (Fig. 1, AP 110A), and wherein the second wireless device, the third wireless device, or both, comprise wireless stations (Fig. 1, client devices 115A and 115B).
Regarding claims 18 and 28, Gandhi discloses a second wireless device (Fig. 1, client device 115A and/or Fig. 6), comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code (Fig. 6, memory 610); and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories (Fig. 6, CPU 605 coupled with memory via bus 630) and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the second wireless device (Fig. 6) to:
communicate one or more messages with a first wireless device via a set of frequency resources spanning a plurality of sub-bands (Figs. 1, 49th and 52nd paragraphs, AP 110A communicates with client devices 115A and 115B via sub-bands of frequencies);
transmit, to the first wireless device, a report indicating interference at the second wireless device on at least one sub-band of the plurality of sub-bands (49th paragraph, AP receives one or more unsafe frequency reports from one or more client devices. Each unsafe frequency report can indicate zero or more sub-bands experiencing interference, from the respective of the client device);
receive, from the first wireless device based at least in part on the report, a control message comprising a first selected punctured bandwidth bitmap indicating that the first wireless device supports communication over a subset of frequency resources of the set of frequency resources that excludes the at least one sub-band (Fig. 3, 55th and 57th paragraphs, AP determines dynamic puncturing parameters based on the unsafe frequency reports. These dynamic puncturing parameters can include device specific parameters, e.g., different puncturing for each client device and frequency specific parameters, e.g., puncturing sub-bands or specific frequencies within one or more channels. AP may indicate to each client device the specific frequencies being punctured. The AP may use a bit mask to function specific frequencies within the affected channel); and
communicate with the first wireless device via the subset of frequency resources based at least in part on receiving the control message (57th paragraph and Fig. 3, AP then communicates with the client devise using punctured resources).
Regarding claims 19 and 29, Gandhi discloses that wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the second wireless device to (Fig. 6): perform measurements on signals received from a third wireless device; and determine the interference at the second wireless device within the set of frequency resources based at least in part on the measurements, wherein transmitting the report is based at least in part on a level of the interference satisfying a threshold interference level (41st paragraph, the client device can identify channels used by cellular or WLAN. The client device can determine whether the detected interference meets or exceeds one or more thresholds and transmits unsafe frequency report accordingly).
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.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gandhi in view of Zhang et al (US 2025/0350982 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Gandhi discloses wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to (Fig. 7): transmit, to the second wireless device, the third wireless device, or both, control signaling for transmitting reports associated with interference at the respective second and third wireless devices (Fig. block 305, AP transmits requests to client devices for unsafe frequency reports). Gandhi does not disclose control signaling indicating a reporting configuration and wherein the report is received in accordance with the reporting configuration. Zhang discloses the UE may receive a report setting and report parameters according to the configuration (5th paragraph and Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include receiving report configuration for reporting parameters in Gandhi’s system, as suggested by Zhang, to ensure accurate, compliant, and standardized data generation.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gandhi in view of Singh (US 2025/0182218 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Gandhi discloses identifying an allocation of wireless resources, including punctured one or more of the set of frequencies, during a first transmission opportunity and communicating using allocation of wireless resources (Fig. 5). Gandhi does not disclose that receive, from the second wireless device, an acknowledgment of the subset of frequency resources, wherein communicating with the second wireless device during the time interval via the subset of frequency resources is based at least in part on receiving the acknowledgment. Singh discloses allocation of one or more resources from the first use to the second user and acknowledgment provided to the first user for allocation of the one or more sources (28th paragraph). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include receiving acknowledgment for allocation of resources in Gandhi’s system, as suggested by Singh, to ensure allocated resources are properly received.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 13-14, 20, 27, and 30 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.
Conclusion
Cizdziel et al (US 2024/0031057 A1), same field of endeavor, discloses puncturing channels based on detected radar (Figs. 3-4).
Lou et al (US 2025/0119191 A1), same field of endeavor, discloses puncturing in WLAN systems (Figs. 13-18)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH VU H LY whose telephone number is (571)272-3175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Nick Jensen can be reached at 571-270-5443. 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.
ANH VU H. LY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2472
/ANH VU H LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights