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 (IDS) submitted on 03/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8, 11-14, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sen et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 210/0091818 (hereinafter Sen).
Regarding Claim 1, Sen teaches a method (“an improved device and methodology for determining the optimal channel release time for wireless portable devices in the presence of interferers” – See [¶0006], e.g., based on “an Adaptive Frequency Hopping (AFH) method for modifying the frequency hopping sequence of Bluetooth in order to avoid in-band interferers” – See [¶0013]), comprising:
performing, by a wireless communication device, an initial channel assessment across a plurality of channels (“the wireless communication device operating in a frequency hopping mode includes channel assessment functionality 222 that assesses a plurality of channels received by the transceiver for interference” whereby “channels or frequencies are typically scanned and then evaluated for interference”– See [¶0015]),
using a wireless communication technology of a plurality of wireless communication technologies supported by the wireless communication device (“transceivers that operate in frequency hopping mode include, but are not limited to, Bluetooth protocol compliant transceivers, cordless phones, military radios . . . a cellular transceiver or a WLAN transceiver or a near-field communication (NFC) transceiver among other wireless transceivers and combinations thereof” – See [¶0014];
generating, by the wireless communication device, a channel map for the plurality of channels, for identifying a channel state for the plurality of channels (“the controller includes channel map configuration functionality 227 that enables the identification of channels that are available or unavailable for use by the wireless communication device” – See [¶0016] and Fig. 2),
based on a comparison of one or more metrics for the channels as compared to one or more key performance indicator (KPI) metrics set according to the wireless communication technology (“the channel interference is evaluated based on received signal strength indicator (RSSI) scans or based on the signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR) or signal to noise ratio (SNR). Alternatively, the interference is evaluated based on packet error statistics, for example, bit error rate (BER), packet error rate (PER) or block error rates (BLER). The evaluation may also be based on a combination of these and other factors. Based on this evaluation, the frequency channel can then be marked or classified as good, bad or unknown,”– See [¶0015] e.g., “the criterion for removing a channel is the evaluation of an RSSI or SINR or SNR or BER or PER or BLER associated with the channel relative to a corresponding threshold” corresponding to “an unacceptable level of interference” – See [¶0016]); and
occupying, by the wireless communication device, a channel, of the plurality of channels, based on the channel state of the channel in the channel map (“the controller maintains a
list of channels that are available to the wireless communication device operating in the frequency hopping mode. Channels that are subject to unacceptable levels of interference
may be removed from the list” or “may remain on the list but they may be flagged or
otherwise identified as being unavailable” – See id.; “According to a related aspect of the disclosure, the wireless device configures a channel map . . . and operates in frequency hopping mode based on the configured channel map,” i.e., occupy “channels that are available for use by the device” – See [¶0022]).
Therefore, Claim 1 is anticipated by Sen.
Regarding Claim 2, dependent from Claim 1, Sen further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
selecting, by the wireless communication device, the wireless communication technology from the plurality of wireless communication technologies supported by the wireless communication device, to perform the initial channel assessment (“The transceiver 210 is more generally representative of one or more wireless transceivers, at least one of which operates in a
frequency hopping mode” – See [¶0014] and Fig. 2, wherein the controller 220 will choose the transceiver that operates in FH mode).
Therefore, Claim 2 is anticipated by Sen.
Regarding Claim 3, dependent from Claim 2, Sen further teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the plurality of wireless communication technologies comprises at least one of a 20 megahertz (MHz) wireless local area network (WLAN) communication technology (e.g., “FIG. 3 illustrates a wireless local area network (WLAN) receiver 340 that obtains information from WLAN access points” – See [¶0021] and may be “for example, an 802.11 b/g/n/x device 102 communicates with an access point” – See [¶0012], i.e., devices standardized by IEEE 802.11 WG known in the art for 20MHz and 40 MHz channels1), a first personal area network (PAN) technology, or a second PAN technology (and “neighboring wireless personal area network (WPAN) devices 330, for example, from neighboring Bluetooth, ZigBee, and Bluetooth Low Energy, e.g., Wibree, devices among others” – See [¶0021]).
Therefore, Claim 3 is anticipated by Sen.
Regarding Claim 7, dependent from Claim 1, Sen further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the channel state is identified from a plurality of channel states comprising an occupied channel state, a potentially occupied channel state, or an available channel state (“the controller also includes functionality 223 enabling the classification, for example, by the identification,
of one or more channels that are available or unavailable for use by the wireless communication device based on interference associated with the corresponding channel” – See [¶0016]).
Therefore, Claim 7 is anticipated by Sen.
Regarding Claim 8, dependent from Claim 1, Sen further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the channel state for a respective channel is identified as an occupied channel state2, responsive to at least one of:
the one or more metrics for the respective channel indicating interference being detected on the respective channel (“Channels that are identified as being unavailable are generally
subject to an unacceptable level of interference,” i.e., are occupied by other devices, and “the criterion for removing a channel is the evaluation of an RSSI or SINR or SNR or BER or PER or BLER associated with the channel relative to a corresponding threshold” – See [¶0016] and “while the channel assessment timer is running, only the channels that are available may be evaluated or re-evaluated for interference” – See [¶0017]),
a count of neighboring narrowband channels (NNCs) having respective metrics indicating interference being detected satisfying a first threshold criterion, or
a count of consecutive ranging failures satisfying a second threshold criterion (“the condition of the wireless communication device is a determination of its location” – See [¶0019] e.g., “the location of a wireless communication device may be . . . obtained from information obtained from neighboring wireless personal area network (WPAN) devices 330, for example, from neighboring Bluetooth, ZigBee, and Bluetooth Low Energy, e.g., Wibree, devices among others” and “may be used to dynamically control the channel assessment time-out interval” – See [¶0021], i.e., through ranging, as defined by the IEEE 802.15.4-20113 whereby the ranging counter value is an indicator of failures).
Therefore, Claim 8 is anticipated by Sen.
Regarding Claim 11, dependent from Claim 1, Sen further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: after a predetermined duration following designation of one or more channels of the plurality of channels as having an occupied channel state, performing, by the wireless communication device, one or more subsequent channel assessments for the one or more channels (“Generally, channels that are unavailable for use by the wireless communication device are re-evaluated after some time interval to determine whether the unavailable channels may be re-classified as available” e.g., “The unavailable channels are not re-scanned or at least not re-evaluated, for possible re-introduction as an available channel, until the corresponding timer has timed-out or expired” and “the controller includes a channel assessment timer 225, which is implemented in software or firmware” whereby “the timer 225 is implemented as
multiple channel assessment timers wherein there is a corresponding timer for each channel identified as being unavailable” – See [¶0017]); and
updating, by the wireless communication device, the channel map according to the one or more subsequent channel assessments (e.g., “if the number of available channels decreases, it may be desirable to shorten the interval after which an unavailable channel becomes eligible for re-introduction into the channel map” – See [¶0023]).
Therefore, Claim 11 is anticipated by Sen.
Regarding Claim 12, Sen teaches a wireless communication device, comprising:
one or more wireless transceivers configured to support one or more of a plurality of wireless communication technologies; and one or more processors (“FIG. 2 illustrates a block diagram of a wireless communication device 200 that operates in a frequency hopping mode” whereby “The device includes a wireless transceiver 210 communicably coupled to a controller 220 that is communicably coupled to memory 230. The transceiver 210 is more generally representative of one or more wireless transceivers . . . that operate in frequency hopping mode include, but are not limited to, Bluetooth protocol compliant transceivers, cordless phones, military radios” – See [¶0014]) configured to: perform the method described in Claim 1 using the same language, only applied to the device of Claim 12. Because Claim 1 is anticipated by Sen, Claim 12 is also anticipated by Sen.
Regarding Claims 13-14 and 17-18, dependent from Claim 12, each claim recites the same limitations as Claims 2-3 and 7-8, respectively, using the same language, only applied to the device of Claim 12. Because each of the Claims 2-3, 7-8, and Claim 12 are anticipated by Sen, Claims 13-14 and 17-18 are anticipated by Sen.
Regarding Claim 20, teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (“the controller is a digital processor that executes instructions in the form of firmware or software . . . implemented by hardware equivalent circuitry or as a combination of hardware and software components” – See [¶0014] and Fig. 2 showing a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions for the controller 220) to: perform the method described in Claim 1 using the same language. Because Claim 1 is anticipated by Sen, Claim 20 is anticipated by Sen.
In sum, Claims 1-3, 7-8, 11-14, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) as anticipated by Sen.
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.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sen as applied to claims 1, 3 and 12 above, and further in view of Kulkarni et al., “A Survey on Interference Avoiding Methods for Wireless Sensor Networks Working in the 2.4 GHz Frequency Band” Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Review. 13. 59-81. 10.25103/jestr.133.08. (2020) (hereinafter Kulkarni).
Regarding Claim 4, dependent from Claim 3, Sen does not teach the technical specifications of the first and second PAN technologies
Kulkarni, like Sen, discloses that “the 2.4GHz frequency-based technologies like ZigBee, Wi-Fi or WLAN, and Bluetooth are working in the common frequency band” and “Particularly, the performance of ZigBee based WSN is highly influential because of other technologies and therefore is getting degraded in terms of high packet drop, and increased frame error rate (FER) because of data collisions and increased energy consumption” – See §1., col.1-2, at p.59 and indicates the standard specification for WAN and PAN technologies in Table 1, at p. 60.
Kulkarni, showing channel specifications of the wireless technologies operating in 2.4GHz Frequency Band for ZigBee, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices in Fig. 3, at p. 62 (showing, e.g., 2MHz or 4MHz Zigbee channels with central frequencies separated by 5 MHz and 1MHz Bluetooth channels), surveys in §2.(A.) “[i]nterference from other coexisting technologies working on same frequency band” whereby “WSN( ZigBee network based on IEEE 802.15.4 standard) operating in the 2.4GHz frequency band is coexisting with other technologies like Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11) and Bluetooth” – See id., col.1, and further references “Rosario G. Garroppo et al. [47] have conducted an experimental study for analyzing the mutual interference among ZigBee, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices” – See §2.(A)(a), col.1, at p.65, and
further teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the first PAN technology supports 2.5 MHz communication, and the second PAN technology supports at least one of 2 MHz communication or 4 MHz communication – See Garroppo et al., "Experimental assessment of the coexistence of Wi-Fi, ZigBee, and Bluetooth devices," 2011 IEEE International Symposium on a World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks, Lucca, Italy, 2011, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1109/WoWMoM.2011.5986182 (hereinafter Garroppo), §III, col.2, at p.2 (stating “The IEEE 802.15.4 standard [9] specifies the physical and medium access control layers for low-rate wireless PANs” wherein “Sixteen channels are defined for worldwide use in the 2.4 GHz band. However, differently from 802.11, they are much narrower (just 2 MHz) and do not overlap, so that up to sixteen 802.15.4 networks can easily coexist in the same area”)
Thus, Sen and Kulkarni each teaches devices using a plurality of wireless communications technologies, e.g., Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and ZigBee coexisting and interfering across a plurality of channels within the same frequency band, e.g., 2.4GHz band, and KPI metrics to assess the effects of interference. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the technical specifications of the wireless technologies operating in 2.4GHz band surveyed in Kulkarni and indicating that devices using the IEEE 802.15.4 standard operate in narrower channels, e.g., 2MHz, could have been applied to the technologies disclosed in Sen because both reference ZigBee network based on IEEE 802.15.4 standard interfering with IEEE 802.11 Wi-Fi networks. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the combination through techniques known in the art. Finally, the combination achieves the predictable result of expanding Sen’s method to include KPI metrics and results taught by Kulkarni and its references.
Therefore, Claim 4 is obvious over Sen in view of Kulkarni.
Regarding Claim 5, dependent from Claim 1, Sen further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more KPI metrics comprise
one or more first KPI metrics for a first wireless communication technology and set according to a fixed metric (e.g., for a static technology like Wi-Fi, “the channel interference is evaluated based on received signal strength indicator (RSSI) scans or based on the signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR) or signal to noise ratio (SNR) . . . whereupon the signal measurements are made for each channel” or “the interference is evaluated based on packet error statistics, for example, bit error rate (BER), packet error rate (PER) or block error rates (BLER) . . . . . . whereupon the signal measurements are made for each channel” and “the frequency channel can then be marked or classified as good, bad or unknown” in a “process [] also referred to as channel classification” – See [¶0015] that inherently requires a fixed metric to compare to for the classification of channels), and
one or more second KPI metrics for a second wireless communication technology and set according to the fixed metric (“the Bluetooth standard requires that the device maintain a minimum number of channels on the channel map” therefore, “it may be desirable to shorten the interval after which an unavailable channel becomes eligible for re-introduction into the channel map” – See [¶0023] i.e., the KPI is the number of channels and the fixed metric is the standard minimum value).
Kulkarni and its surveyed references analyze in §2. (B.) interference from the nodes of same WSN (ZigBee), i.e., same wireless technology and concludes that “for efficient data communication between two nodes . . . it is assumed as link quality is high for the transmission of the data and the packet reception ratio (PRR) is above 90 percent” hence setting a fixed metric to compare to for the classification of channels – See §2. (B.)(a.), col.1, at p.67 while at “introduced adjacent channel interference . . . the PRR decreased by 40%” – See §2. (B.)(c.), col.2, at p.67.
Kulkarni references the Garroppo supra study of mutual interference in the 2.4GHz Frequency Band for ZigBee, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices. Garroppo, like Sen, discloses that for Bluetooth technology “the ratio of interfered versus clean channels corresponds to roughly 28% (i.e. 22 out of 79)” – See §V(C.), col.1., at p.8. Garroppo further discloses that because “[t]he frames are acknowledged by default, with the ACK mechanism handled directly by the MAC layer . . . the performance of Bluetooth was measured in terms of achieved goodput (in this case, the number of transferred bits per second)” – See §IV(C.), col.1., at p.5, i.e., another KPI metric–the throughput4– is used for interference measurements on Bluetooth channels, further determined against the fixed metric of available channels ratio – See §V(C.), col.1., at p.8 (concluding that “the actual goodput reduction is between 47% and 68%, which is far more than 28%”).
Thus. Sen and Kulkarni referencing Garroppo each teaches devices using a plurality of wireless communications technologies, e.g., Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and ZigBee coexisting and interfering across a plurality of channels within the same frequency band, e.g., 2.4GHz band, and KPI metrics to assess the effects of interference. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the fixed metrics packet reception ratio (PRR) above 90% and Throughput above 28% surveyed in Kulkarni as interference indicators could have been applied to the wireless technologies disclosed in Sen because both use the same KPI metrics for determining interference. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the combination through techniques known in the art. Finally, the combination achieves the predictable result of setting fixed metrics to Sen’s measurements of KPI metrics per wireless technology, as taught by Kulkarni and its references.
Therefore, Claim 5 is obvious over Sen in view of Kulkarni.
Regarding Claim 6, dependent from Claim 5, Sen further teaches the method of claim 5, further comprising determining, by the wireless communication device, the one or more KPI metrics according to the fixed metric, based on a type of the wireless communication technology selected to perform the initial channel assessment (the device “may be configured to identify channels that are available for use by the device or to identify channels that are not available for use by the wireless communication device” – See [¶0022] whereby “Channels that are identified as being unavailable are generally subject to an unacceptable level of interference” and “the criterion for removing a channel is the evaluation of an . . . PER . . . associated with the channel relative to a corresponding threshold” – See [¶0016], e.g., the 90% threshold taught in Kulkarni referencing Garroppo supra).
Therefore, Claim 6 is obvious over Sen in view of Kulkarni.
Regarding Claims 15-16, dependent from Claim 12, each claim recites the same limitations as Claims 4-5, respectively, using the same language, only applied to the device of Claim 12 anticipated by Sen. Because each of the Claims 4-5 is obvious over Sen in view of Kulkarni, Claims 15-16 are obvious over Sen in view of Kulkarni.
In sum, claims 4-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Sen in view of Kulkarni.
Claim(s) 9, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sen as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Korneliussen et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0385674 (hereinafter Korneliussen).
Regarding Claim 9, dependent from Claim 1, Sen does not teach the wireless communication device comprises a central device.
Korneliussen, like Sen, teaches a plurality of wireless technologies including Bluetooth and Wi-Fi interfering in the same frequency band (“each BLE data channel 40, 42 will experience a different amount of interference dependent on the physical location of the central 10 and peripheral 12, the local environment and what other RF channels (such as the Wi-Fi channels 44, 46, 48) are in use in the local area” – See [¶0069]) and the method of channel hopping on a channel map (“the . . . devices are arranged to frequency hop between the radio channels provided in the channel map according to a predetermined algorithm” – See [¶0033] because, e.g., “in radio system comprising a central radio transceiver device 10 operating in accordance with the Bluetooth Low Energy™ radio protocol and a peripheral radio transceiver device 12 also operating in accordance with Bluetooth Low Energy™” – See [¶0060] and Fig. 1, “each BLE data channel 40, 42 will experience a different amount of interference dependent on the physical location of the central 10 and peripheral 12, the local environment and what other RF channels (such as the Wi-Fi channels 44, 46, 48) are in use in the local area” – See [¶0069]).
Korneliussen further teaches wherein the wireless communication device comprises a central device (“a method of operating a digital radio communication system comprising a central device and a peripheral device in accordance with a predetermined communication protocol” – See [¶0016] e.g., “The Bluetooth™ Low Energy (BLE) protocol” whereby “there are 37 different RF data channels available in the 2.4 GHz public ISM band” – See [¶0002], comprising “at least one of the central and peripheral devices assigning a dynamic channel rating to one or more of said radio channels based on an outcome of at least some of the data integrity checks” – See [¶0020], e.g., “the at least one of the central and peripheral devices is arranged to: calculate an average channel rating of all of the radio channels in a channel map; compare the rating of each individual channel to the average channel rating; and remove at least one channel having a rating worse that the average channel rating by a predetermined amount from the channel map” – See [¶¶0035-38]), the method further comprising:
transmitting, by the central device, the channel map to one or more peripheral devices communicably coupled to the central device (“The selection of channel being used is made
according to a predetermined channel hopping algorithm and a channel map which is communicated by the central device 10 to the peripheral device 12 during connection
establishment and which is periodically updated” – See [¶0077]).
Thus, Sen and Korneliussen each teaches devices using a plurality of wireless communications technologies, e.g., Wi-Fi and Bluetooth coexisting and interfering across a plurality of channels within the same frequency band, e.g., 2.4GHz band, and a frequency hopping method on a channel map. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the central/peripheral devices arrangement for Bluetooth devices in Korneliussen whereby the central device transmits the channel map to the peripheral devices could have been combined with the WPAN arrangements disclosed in Sen because both reference Bluetooth technology using frequency hopping and channel map to avoid interference from Wi-Fi devices. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the combination through techniques known in the art. Finally, the combination achieves the predictable result of distributing the channel map from a central device, e.g., a PAN coordinator as known in the art, to peripheral devices, as taught in Korneliussen while using a more robust channel rating algorithm also taught in Korneliussen.
Therefore, Claim 9 is obvious over Sen in view of Korneliussen.
Regarding Claim 10, dependent from Claim 1, Sen further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the wireless communication device, for a second subset of channels of the plurality of channels having an available channel state, to perform one or more subsequent channel assessments (“while the channel assessment timer is running, only the channels that are available may be evaluated or re-evaluated for interference” – See [¶0017]), performing, by the wireless communication device, for the second subset, one or more subsequent channel assessments (perform assessments to “maintain a minimum number of channels on the channel map,” e.g. determine “if the number of available channels decreases” in time – See [¶0023]); and updating, by the wireless communication device, the channel map according to the one or more subsequent channel assessments (“if the number of available channels decreases, it may be desirable to shorten the interval after which an unavailable channel becomes eligible for re-introduction into the channel map” – See id.).
Sen does not teach performing the same for a first subset of channels of the plurality of channels having a potentially occupied channel state.
Korneliussen teaches that “If one channel experiences high levels of interference, it is likely that channels of similar frequencies will also experience interference due to the wide frequency bands of common interference sources” – See [¶0039], therefore they become potentially occupied.
Korneliussen further teaches determining, by the wireless communication device for a first subset of channels of the plurality of channels having a potentially unavailable channel state, to perform one or more subsequent channel assessments (determine “to modify the rating of one or more channels based on the ratings of channels within a predetermined range of frequencies around said channel” – See id., thus “assessing the implication for additional channels based on the ratings for a smaller number of channels” – See [¶0040])
performing, by the wireless communication device, for the first subset, one or more subsequent channel assessments (e.g., “identify one or more potentially interfering channels of another radio protocol and to assign a dynamic activity rating thereto based on the channel ratings or data integrity checks on channels associated with the potentially interfering channel(s) according to a predetermined association” – See id.); and
updating, by the wireless communication device, the channel map according to the one or more subsequent channel assessments (“devices may therefor determine whether or which one(s) of the other known and potentially interfering radio protocol channels is/are active based on the activity ratings assigned to them. This may then be used to remove all of the radio channels associated with the potentially interfering channel if the activity rating reaches a threshold. In a set of embodiments, the potentially interfering channels are Wi-Fi channels, i.e. those specified
in IEEE 802.11” – See [¶0041]).
Because the method in Sen is combinable with the method in Korneliussen for reasons explained supra, Claim 10 is obvious over Sen in view of Korneliussen.
Regarding Claim 19, dependent from Claim 12, the claim recites the same limitations as Claim 9, using the same language, only applied to the device of Claim 12, anticipated by Sen. Because Claim 9 is obvious over Sen in view of Korneliussen, Claim 19 is also obvious over Sen in view of Korneliussen.
In sum, Claims 9-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Sen in view of Korneliussen.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Linsky et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0133543 as referenced by Sen;
Shima, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0324595 discloses methods and systems for identifying occupied areas of a radio frequency (RF) spectrum, identifying areas within that RF spectrum that are unusable for further transmissions, and identifying areas within that RF spectrum that are occupied but that may nonetheless be available for additional RF transmissions;
Bustani et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0098270 discloses apparatuses, devices, systems and methods of determining one or more active channels using a two-dimensional energy detection map;
Robin et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0397509 discloses transmitting, to a network entity, first channel map information of a wireless communication device, wherein the first channel map information includes one or more channels associated with the wireless communication device;
Aldana et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0353650 discloses channel resources allocated for a first vehicular radio communication technology and channel resources allocated for a second vehicular radio communication technology;
Farchy et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240430961 discloses allowing the wireless devices to communicate with each other at different frequencies, so that the communication range and coverage of the wireless device can be increased and utilizing the central device to determine the sub-connection events channel map that is used by the set of mediators so as to advantageously reduce the possibility of a collision between nodes in the system;
"ISO/IEC/IEEE - International Standard - Telecommunications and information exchange between systems--Specific requirements for local and metropolitan area networks--Part 11: Wireless LAN medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications," in ISO/IEC/IEEE 8802-11:2022(E), vol., no., pp.1-4382, 26 Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9930960;
"IEEE Draft Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Networks Amendment: Enhanced High Rate Pulse (HRP) and Low Rate Pulse (LRP) Ultra Wide-Band (UWB) Physical Layers (PHYs) and Associated Ranging Techniques," in IEEE P802.15.4z/D06, March 2020, vol., no., pp.1-171, 10 March 2020;
"IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks--Part 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR-WPANs)," in IEEE Std 802.15.4-2011 (Revision of IEEE Std 802.15.4-2006) , vol., no., pp.1-314, 5 Sept. 2011, doi: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2011.6012487;
"ISO/IEC/IEEE International Standard - Information technology--Telecommunications and information exchange between systems--Local and metropolitan area networks--Specific requirements--Part 15-4: Wireless medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications for low-rate wireless personal area networks (WPANs)," in ISO/IEC/IEEE 8802-15-4:2018(E) , vol., no., pp.1-712, 30 April 2018, doi: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8362834;
Garroppo et al., "Experimental assessment of the coexistence of Wi-Fi, ZigBee, and Bluetooth devices," 2011 IEEE International Symposium on a World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks, Lucca, Italy, 2011, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1109/WoWMoM.2011.5986182;
Kulkarni et al., “A Survey on Interference Avoiding Methods for Wireless Sensor Networks Working in the 2.4 GHz Frequency Band” Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Review. 13. 59-81. 10.25103/jestr.133.08. (2020);
Lo Bello et al., "Coexistence Issues of Multiple Co-Located IEEE 802.15.4/ZigBee Networks Running on Adjacent Radio Channels in Industrial Environments," in IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 157-167, May 2009, doi: 10.1109/TII.2009.2018541.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCIA GHEORGHE GRADINARIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1377. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm 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.
/L.G.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
1 See, e.g., §§ 19.3.15-18, "ISO/IEC/IEEE - International Standard - Telecommunications and information exchange between systems--Specific requirements for local and metropolitan area networks--Part 11: Wireless LAN medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications," in ISO/IEC/IEEE 8802-11:2022(E), vol., no., pp.1-4382, 26 Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9930960. (hereinafter IEEE 802.11-2022) specifying at page 2928-2931 channelization and PHY transmit specification for 20MHz and 40 MHz channels.
2 According to the Specification “A state diagram may be implemented/proposed in which channels are classified as "good", "bad", or "potential"” whereby “before entering a first ranging round, each channel may be marked as “available”” and “If the energy detected over a channel satisfies a threshold criteria, the initiator device may label the channel as unavailable” – See Spec., p.19:24-28; p.20:1-7, therefore there is no “occupied” state defined for a channel; the Specification frequently uses the term “occupied by neighboring WLAN devices” to indicate that a channel is “occupied” – See, e.g., p.23:15-17, hence it can be reasonably assumed that a channel where interference is detected is “occupied” or “unavailable” or “bad.”
3 See, e.g., §14.7, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks--Part 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR-WPANs)," in IEEE Std 802.15.4-2011 (Revision of IEEE Std 802.15.4-2006) , vol., no., pp.1-314, 5 Sept. 2011, doi: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2011.6012487 (hereinafter IEEE 802.15.4-2011) defining, at page 220-221, the Ranging capability of a device (RDEV), including the ranging counter supported by an RDEV whereby “The LSB of the counter value shall represent 1/128 of a chip time at the mandatory chipping rate of 499.2 MHz” and the confidence level (FoM) for every ranging counter value that is produced as information about the quality of a ranging measurement.
4 Sen also noted the interference of Bluetooth automatic retransmissions with the other KPIs such as BER/PER – See [¶0032] (“The number of Bluetooth packet retransmissions may be reduced because the shorter channel
assessment timer allows the best channels to be available in the map”).
Prosecution Insights