DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the communications filed on September 9, 2024. Claims 1-24 are pending in the application.
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 Statements filed on 9/10/2024 have been considered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,133,212. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-24 of the present application are unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,133,212 in view of Chen et al. (US 2002/0136233).
Present application:
1. A method comprising:
determining, by an access point, a collision of a first transmission from a first device with a second transmission from a second device;
determining, based on the collision and based on a device type for the first device, a length of time associated with the device type;
causing, by the access point, the second device to not communicate for the length of time;
receiving, by the access point and during the length of time, a third transmission from the first device; and
receiving, by the access point and after the length of time, a fourth transmission from the second device.
US 12,133,212:
1. A method comprising:
determining, by the access point, a collision of the first transmission with the second transmission;
2. … wherein the first transmission is received from a first device, … and wherein the second transmission is received from a second device
determining, based on the collision and based on a minimum time to send a packet using the first wireless protocol, a length of time;
disabling, by the access point, communication using the second wireless protocol for the length of time;
receiving, during the length of time, a third transmission via the first wireless protocol; and
US 12,133,212 does not recite receiving, by the access point and after the length of time, a fourth transmission from the second device. However, Chen teaches receiving, by the access point and after the length of time, a fourth transmission from the second device (“After a suitable length of time has elapsed, the second protocol 272 is resumed 276 such that the two transmissions 270, 272 are sequentially transmitted in a non-frequency-overlapping manner” – See [0095]; “the Bluetooth module 120 and WLAN module 122 of the CP device 117 receive wireless data transmissions from wireless devices 105 in the network 100 . The transmissions are subsequently processed by the coordination module 124 to identify the aforementioned delay and throughput characteristics and assess the service quality using the quality monitoring schema. The quality monitoring schema 190 provides a mechanism by which determinations may be made as to how to balance traffic in the wireless network 100 wherein the plurality of protocols 110, 111 operate. This system advantageously uses the quality monitoring schema 190 to monitor and balance 205 current data traffic conditions which may be used to identify transmissions 197, 200 which are subject to unacceptable degradation or latency” – See [0079]; After the time window (length of time) elapses, communications from the second device are resumed and the coordination point (access point) receives a fourth transmission from the second device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify US 12,133,212 to include receiving, by the access point and after the length of time, a fourth transmission from the second device. Motivation for doing so would be to allow transmissions from the second device to be resumed after its transmissions were delayed during the length of time (See Chen, [0095]).
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, by the access point, the first transmission from the first device and the second transmission from a second device.
1. … receiving, by an access point, a first transmission in a first wireless protocol and a second transmission in a second wireless protocol, wherein the access point is configured to communicate via the first wireless protocol and the second wireless protocol
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining the device type for the first device and a second device type for the second device, wherein the device type and the second device type are different.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the first transmission is received from a first device and the second transmission is received from a second device, the method further comprising prioritizing the first wireless protocol based on a first device type associated with the first device or a second device type associated with the second device.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the first transmission is in a first wireless protocol and the second transmission is in a second wireless protocol.
1. … receiving, by an access point, a first transmission in a first wireless protocol and a second transmission in a second wireless protocol, wherein the access point is configured to communicate via the first wireless protocol and the second wireless protocol
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising prioritizing the first transmission over the second transmission based on the device type for the first device.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the first transmission is received from a first device and the second transmission is received from a second device, the method further comprising prioritizing the first wireless protocol based on a first device type associated with the first device or a second device type associated with the second device.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein causing the second device to not communicate for the length of time comprises turning off, at the access point, a receiver associated with the second transmission.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein disabling communication using the second wireless protocol comprises turning off, at the access point, a transmitter associated with the second wireless protocol.
Claims 7-24 are rejected based on claims 1, 2, 5, and 7 of US 12,133,212 based on similar reasoning as given above.
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.
(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, 7-11, 13-17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2002/0136233).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen teaches a method comprising:
determining, by an access point, a collision of a first transmission from a first device with a second transmission from a second device (“In a similar manner, Resolution B type collisions 256 are characterized by the first colliding protocol 270 having a higher basic priority 215 than the second colliding protocol 272. Furthermore, the first colliding protocol 270 is characterized as being within acceptable service level parameters 274 while the second colliding protocol 272 is operating below the desired service level range 274. In this circumstance, the first protocol 270 is deferred 275 to permit the second protocol 272 to proceed in the open transmission window 278 so as to improve the service level 274 of the second protocol and prevent further degradation of its current service 230. This resolution 256 maintains desirable data throughput and QOS parameters 220 as the first protocol 270 may be partially degraded and still operate within the desired service level 211. The first protocol transmission 270 is overlapping transmission in the frequency-overlapping protocols” – See [0097]; See also Fig. 9; A collision is detected in step 152. In the “Resolution B” example shown in Fig. 9, a collision between a first transmission from a first device (WLAN device) and second transmission from a second device (Bluetooth device) occurs at 275);
determining, based on the collision and based on a device type for the first device, a length of time associated with the device type (“In this circumstance, the first protocol 270 is deferred 275 to permit the second protocol 272 to proceed in the open transmission window 278 so as to improve the service level 274 of the second protocol and prevent further degradation of its current service 230. This resolution 256 maintains desirable data throughput and QOS parameters 220 as the first protocol 270 may be partially degraded and still operate within the desired service level 211. The first protocol transmission 270 is subsequently resumed 276 when the likelihood of collision has diminished to provide sequential rather than overlapping transmission in the frequency-overlapping protocols” – See [0097]; “the determination 241 of the ordering of the conflicting transmissions comprises identifying the priority values 215 for each of the conflicting transmissions and determining if the transmission with the lower basic priority 215 will be in a desired service level 211 at the time of the collision” – See [0088]; “Thus in Resolution B 256, lower basic priority traffic is given a higher dynamic priority to insure that current service for each traffic type remains within desired service levels 211” – See [0090]; See also Fig. 9; In response to detecting a collision, the scheduling protocol determines that the Bluetooth transmission will be delayed/prevented for a time window 278 (length of time), wherein the time window is determined based on the first device type by determining that the WLAN device (first device type) has a higher dynamic priority than the Bluetooth device);
causing, by the access point, the second device to not communicate for the length of time (“In this circumstance, the first protocol 270 is deferred 275 to permit the second protocol 272 to proceed in the open transmission window 278 so as to improve the service level 274 of the second protocol and prevent further degradation of its current service 230. This resolution 256 maintains desirable data throughput and QOS parameters 220 as the first protocol 270 may be partially degraded and still operate within the desired service level 211. The first protocol transmission 270 is subsequently resumed 276 when the likelihood of collision has diminished to provide sequential rather than overlapping transmission in the frequency-overlapping protocols” – See [0097]; See also Fig. 9; Transmissions from the Bluetooth device (second device type) are withheld during time window 278);
receiving, by the access point and during the length of time, a third transmission from the first device (“the first protocol 270 is deferred 275 to permit the second protocol 272 to proceed in the open transmission window 278” – See [0097]; “the Bluetooth module 120 and WLAN module 122 of the CP device 117 receive wireless data transmissions from wireless devices 105 in the network 100 . The transmissions are subsequently processed by the coordination module 124 to identify the aforementioned delay and throughput characteristics and assess the service quality using the quality monitoring schema. The quality monitoring schema 190 provides a mechanism by which determinations may be made as to how to balance traffic in the wireless network 100 wherein the plurality of protocols 110, 111 operate. This system advantageously uses the quality monitoring schema 190 to monitor and balance 205 current data traffic conditions which may be used to identify transmissions 197, 200 which are subject to unacceptable degradation or latency” – See [0079]; During the time window (length of time), the coordination point (access point) receives a third transmission from the WLAN device (first device)); and
receiving, by the access point and after the length of time, a fourth transmission from the second device (“The first protocol transmission 270 is subsequently resumed 276 when the likelihood of collision has diminished to provide sequential rather than overlapping transmission in the frequency-overlapping protocols 110, 111” – See [0097]; “the Bluetooth module 120 and WLAN module 122 of the CP device 117 receive wireless data transmissions from wireless devices 105 in the network 100 . The transmissions are subsequently processed by the coordination module 124 to identify the aforementioned delay and throughput characteristics and assess the service quality using the quality monitoring schema. The quality monitoring schema 190 provides a mechanism by which determinations may be made as to how to balance traffic in the wireless network 100 wherein the plurality of protocols 110, 111 operate. This system advantageously uses the quality monitoring schema 190 to monitor and balance 205 current data traffic conditions which may be used to identify transmissions 197, 200 which are subject to unacceptable degradation or latency” – See [0079]; After the time window has elapsed, Bluetooth communication is resumed and the coordination point receives a fourth transmission from the Bluetooth device (second device)).
Regarding Claim 2, Chen teaches the method of Claim 1. Chen further teaches receiving, by the access point, the first transmission from the first device and the second transmission from a second device (“In a similar manner, Resolution B type collisions 256 are characterized by the first colliding protocol 270 having a higher basic priority 215 than the second colliding protocol 272. Furthermore, the first colliding protocol 270 is characterized as being within acceptable service level parameters 274 while the second colliding protocol 272 is operating below the desired service level range 274. In this circumstance, the first protocol 270 is deferred 275 to permit the second protocol 272 to proceed in the open transmission window 278 so as to improve the service level 274 of the second protocol and prevent further degradation of its current service 230. This resolution 256 maintains desirable data throughput and QOS parameters 220 as the first protocol 270 may be partially degraded and still operate within the desired service level 211. The first protocol transmission 270 is overlapping transmission in the frequency-overlapping protocols” – See [0097]; See also Fig. 9; As shown in Fig. 9, the collision is the result of a first transmission from the WLAN device (first device) and a second transmission from the Bluetooth device (second device) occurring at the same time).
Regarding Claim 3, Chen teaches the method of Claim 1. Chen further teaches determining the device type for the first device and a second device type for the second device, wherein the device type and the second device type are different (“In this circumstance, the first protocol 270 is deferred 275 to permit the second protocol 272 to proceed in the open transmission window 278 so as to improve the service level 274 of the second protocol and prevent further degradation of its current service 230. This resolution 256 maintains desirable data throughput and QOS parameters 220 as the first protocol 270 may be partially degraded and still operate within the desired service level 211. The first protocol transmission 270 is subsequently resumed 276 when the likelihood of collision has diminished to provide sequential rather than overlapping transmission in the frequency-overlapping protocols” – See [0097]; “the determination 241 of the ordering of the conflicting transmissions comprises identifying the priority values 215 for each of the conflicting transmissions and determining if the transmission with the lower basic priority 215 will be in a desired service level 211 at the time of the collision” – See [0088]; “Thus in Resolution B 256, lower basic priority traffic is given a higher dynamic priority to insure that current service for each traffic type remains within desired service levels 211” – See [0090]; See also Fig. 9; The coordination point determines the device type associated with each of the first and second transmissions, so that the priority/precedence of each respective device type can be determined. In the “Resolution B” example of Fig. 9, the first device is determined to be a WLAN device (first device type) and the second device is determined to be a Bluetooth device (second device type), wherein the WLAN device is determined to have the higher dynamic priority).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen teaches the method of Claim 1. Chen further teaches that the first transmission is in a first wireless protocol and the second transmission is in a second wireless protocol (As shown above with respect to Claim 1, the first transmission uses a WLAN protocol (first wireless protocol) and the second transmission uses a Bluetooth protocol (second wireless protocol)).
Regarding Claim 5, Chen teaches the method of Claim 1. Chen further teaches prioritizing the first transmission over the second transmission based on the device type for the first device (“In this circumstance, the first protocol 270 is deferred 275 to permit the second protocol 272 to proceed in the open transmission window 278 so as to improve the service level 274 of the second protocol and prevent further degradation of its current service 230. This resolution 256 maintains desirable data throughput and QOS parameters 220 as the first protocol 270 may be partially degraded and still operate within the desired service level 211. The first protocol transmission 270 is subsequently resumed 276 when the likelihood of collision has diminished to provide sequential rather than overlapping transmission in the frequency-overlapping protocols” – See [0097]; “the determination 241 of the ordering of the conflicting transmissions comprises identifying the priority values 215 for each of the conflicting transmissions and determining if the transmission with the lower basic priority 215 will be in a desired service level 211 at the time of the collision” – See [0088]; “Thus in Resolution B 256, lower basic priority traffic is given a higher dynamic priority to insure that current service for each traffic type remains within desired service levels 211” – See [0090]; See also Fig. 9; The coordination point determines the device type associated with each of the first and second transmissions, so that the priority/precedence of each respective device type can be determined. In the “Resolution B” example of Fig. 9, the WLAN device type (first device type) is determined to have a higher dynamic priority than the Bluetooth device type (second device type). Accordingly, the coordination point prioritizes the WLAN transmission (first transmission) over the Bluetooth transmission (second transmission) by preventing Bluetooth transmissions during the time window 278 so that WLAN transmissions may commence during the time window).
Claims 7, 13, and 19 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 1.
Claims 8, 14, and 20 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 2.
Claims 9, 15, and 21 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 3.
Claims 10, 16, and 22 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 4.
Claims 11, 17, and 23 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 5.
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, 12, 18, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2002/0136233) in view of Bell et al. (US 2009/0325566).
Regarding Claim 6, Chen teaches the method of Claim 1. Chen does not explicitly teach that causing the second device to not communicate for the length of time comprises turning off, at the access point, a receiver associated with the second transmission.
However, Bell teaches that causing the second device to not communicate for the length of time comprises turning off, at the access point, a receiver associated with the second transmission (“Similarly, a function may optionally be included which turns on/off or otherwise affects the operation of the device Bluetooth interface when a WiFi association with an AP is detected, or vice versa, so as to mitigate mutual interference. Specifically, devices with co-existing and potentially interfering air interfaces (e.g., WiFi and Bluetooth, both in the 2.4 GHz band) might have one of the air interfaces disabled or enter a different mode of operation (such as Bluetooth adaptive frequency hopping or AFH) so as to mitigate the effects of interference between the two interfaces. For instance, one approach would be to have the mobile device, when operating its Bluetooth interface, periodically check to see if an association was requested or formed between the WiFi interface of the same device and an AP; if so, one policy (imposed by either the mobile device or the AP after the association was formed) might be to apply a prioritization rule that would shut down the Bluetooth interface (or mitigate its radiated power) so as to avoid at least some interference with the WiFi interface” – See [0166]; The Bluetooth receiver (receiver associated with the second transmission) is turned off during Wi-Fi/WLAN transmissions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen such that causing the second device to not communicate for the length of time comprises turning off, at the access point, a receiver associated with the second transmission. Motivation for doing so would be to further mitigate the effects of interference between the first and second wireless protocols (See Bell, [0166]).
Claims 12, 18, and 24 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott M Sciacca whose telephone number is (571)270-1919. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 7:30 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. 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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at (571) 272-3905. 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.
/SCOTT M SCIACCA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights