NON-FINAL ACTION
This Office action is responsive to the application filed September 11, 2025.
The instant 19/326,065 application is an application for reissue of U.S. Pat. 11,757,562 B2 to Khoury et al. (“the ‘562 Patent”), which issued September 12, 2023 from U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 17/533,711 filed November 23, 2021 as a continuation of U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 16/535,758, filed August 8, 2019 (now U.S. Pat. 11,190,295), itself a continuation of U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 14/870,496, filed September 30, 2015 (now U.S. Pat. 10,419,155). By way of a provisional application, the earliest effective U.S. filing date which applies to the claims is September 30, 2014.
In the application, Patent Owner cancels issued claims 1-20 and adds new claims 21-40. Thus claims 21-40 are pending and are rejected below.
This action is Non-Final.
Reissue
The Examiner has determined that there are no other continuations, reissues, reexaminations, inter partes reviews, or other AIA trials or appeals currently pending with respect to the ‘562 Patent. A litigation search has determined there to be no pending litigation as to the ‘562 Patent.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b) to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which the ‘562 Patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Because the instant ‘562 Patent does not contain claims having an effective date prior to March 16, 2013, the America Invents Act First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions apply, rather than the pre-AIA provisions. See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note) and 35 U.S.C. § 100 (pre-AIA ). In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of any statutory basis for a 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.
Reissue Papers
The application of September 11, 2025 is objected to for the following:
As per 37 CFR 1.173(c), whenever there is an amendment to the claims pursuant to paragraph 37 CFR 1.173(b), there must also be supplied, on pages separate from the pages containing the changes, an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims. Here the explanation of support, that the support for the changes in the claims “is found, e.g., in the original claims and in the specification in para. 32. and 34” is insufficient.
A detailed explanation of support for the changes made is required in response to this Office action.
Reissue Amendment
The amendment filed with the application is objected to for the following:
As per 37 CFR 1.173(d)(2), new reissue claims must be underlined in their entirety. See also MPEP § 1453 II. B. and V.
A proper amendment is required in response to this Office action.
Reissue Declaration
The declaration of September 11, 2025 is objected to for the following:
As per 37 CFR 1.175, a declaration in a reissue must provide an error statement identifying at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See also MPEP § 1414. Here, no error statement is provided. In specifically identifying the error as required by 37 CFR 1.175(a), it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify the claim being broadened and a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.
A proper declaration meeting Rule 175 is required in response to this Office action. See also MPEP § 1414.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under §112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with §112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under §112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with §112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under §112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under §112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under §112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under §112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
In claim 21, “an interface circuit configured to wirelessly communicate with at least a receiving device”;
In claim 21, “the transmitting electronic device is configured to: … perform a remedial action other than a handover”;
In claim 21, “the transmitting electronic device is configured to: transmit, addressed to the receiving electronic device, a packet”;
In claim 21, “the transmitting electronic device is configured to: not transmit packets on the channel while maintaining a connection”;
In claim 32, “the transmitting electronic device is configured to determine a cumulative distribution function”;
As to limitation 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, while “interface circuit” implies structure, it does not disclose “sufficiently definite structure that performs the claimed function”. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (quoting Watts v. XL Systems, Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880, 56 USPQ2d 1836, 1838 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission, 161 F. 3d 696, 704, 48 USPQ2d 1880, 1887 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
As to elements 2-5, the term “device” is merely another word for “means”. The modifying phrase “transmitting electronic” does not provide any additional structure which removes the term from the ambit of §112(f). MPEP § 2181 I. A.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under §112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
As to element 1, the disclosure shows interface circuit 618 in FIG 6 as a part of transmitting electronic device 600, but does not specify the structure of the interface circuit. The disclosure does state that the function it performs “may be performed in hardware, in software or both”. Thus the interface circuit claimed encompasses a general purpose computing means running software.
For a computer-implemented §112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under §112 ¶2. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat Techs. Australia PTY Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1336-37, 86 USPQ2d 1235, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
For a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation invoking §112(f) the Federal Circuit has stated that "a microprocessor can serve as structure for a computer-implemented function only where the claimed function is ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor itself." EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 622, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1714 (Fed. Cir. 2015), citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2011). "‘It is only in the rare circumstances where any general-purpose computer without any special programming can perform the function that an algorithm need not be disclosed.’" EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 621, 114 USPQ2 at 1714, quoting Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1365, 102 USPQ2d 1122, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2012). "‘[S]pecial programming’ includes any functionality that is not ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor or general purpose computer." EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 623, 114 USPQ2d at 1715 (citations omitted). "Examples of such coextensive functions are ‘receiving’ data, ‘storing’ data, and ‘processing’ data—the only three functions on which the Katz court vacated the district court’s decision and remanded for the district court to determine whether disclosure of a microprocessor was sufficient." 785 F.3d at 622, 114 USPQ2d at 1714. Thus, "[a] microprocessor or general purpose computer lends sufficient structure only to basic functions of a microprocessor. All other computer-implemented functions require disclosure of an algorithm." Id., 114 USPQ2d at 1714
To claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328 at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. In this instance, the structure corresponding to a §112(f) claim limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239; Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008); WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America Co., 989 F.3d 1002, 1007-8, 2021 USPQ2d 284 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
Here, however, the Examiner is unable to ascertain the necessary algorithm required and thus is unable to further ascertain the corresponding structure in the disclosure.
As to elements 2-5, the ‘562 Patent disclosure shows device 600 in FIG 6, but does not specify the structure which performs the steps claimed. The disclosure does state that “at least some of the operations performed by the transmitting electronic device may be performed using software” and that the device may comprise a processor, however claim 21 does not recite any processor, and notably claim 34 further narrows claim 21 to include such a processor, meaning that by the doctrine of claim differentiation claim 21 encompasses a transmitting electronic device that does not require one. Thus the Examiner is unable to ascertain the corresponding structure in the disclosure.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under §112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under §112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under §112(f).
Note that claims 21, 25, and 41 also recite “a power switch configured to conduct for a duty cycle to provide a regulated output characteristic at an output thereof”. In this case, the Examiner finds such limitation(s) not to fall under the ambit of §112(f) as the term “power switch” is a structural term that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand performs the claimed function, as the function is the inherent function of power switches in switching power supplies.
Contingent Limitations
The Examiner notes a number of contingent limitations in the claims. For example, claims 21, 35, and 38 all recite functions of performing a remedial action and transmitting a packet thereby when received power is within a certain range, and not transmitting packets when the received power is above said range.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.
See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14
Thus, as to process claim 21, the prior art only needs to meet one of the two alternate steps to meet the claim. As to CRM claim 35 and apparatus claim 38, both functions must be in the prior art to read on the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
Claims 21-40 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 21-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim limitations 1-5 above invoke §112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as noted above. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under §112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under §112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. PGPUB 2014/0099941A1 to Ji et al. (“Ji”), published April 10, 2014.
As to claim 38, Kyoung discloses:
A method for performing a remedial action, wherein the method comprises:
by a transmitting electronic device:
Ji discloses a transmitting electronic device. Ji at FIG 1 element 110 and Abstract.
when received power associated with a channel during time intervals between received packets is in a range defined by a threshold value and a second threshold value that is less than the threshold value:
performing the remedial action other than a handover based at least in part on one of: the received power, and a metric associated with the received power; and
Ji discloses determining received power associated with a channel, namely RSRP of a neighboring cell, during time intervals between received packets (the time interval will always be between some received packets). Ji states that a remedial action is performed if the interfering cell received power is above the sum of the serving cell power and an amount θΔλ, which reads a threshold. Ji further states that, in the same system, instead when interfering cell received power is above a handover threshold, the cellular specification performs handover. Id. at ¶29 (“in order to avoid ping-pong effects, in general there are hysteresis values defined in the cellular specifications that typically only allow reselection or hand over when the strength of the neighboring cells become greater than the serving cell by more than a threshold”). Ji states that the handover threshold alone is insufficient and thus performing remedial action when the neighbor cell received strength is above the sum noted above is a beneficial addition. Id. at ¶38.
transmitting, addressed to a receiving electronic device, a packet in a manner consistent with the remedial action; and
Ji discloses that the remedial action may be resynchronizing the current connection. Ji at ¶42. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that this is for continuing to transmit packets to the receiving unit.
when the received power is greater than the threshold value:
not transmitting packets on the channel while maintaining a connection between the transmitting electronic device and the receiving electronic device.
As noted above, since this limitation is contingent in a method claim, it does not need to be met by the prior art to anticipate the claim. Claim Construction, supra.
Further as to claim 40:
The method of claim 38, wherein the remedial action is performed on a per-measurement basis for the received power.
Ji teaches that the remedial action is on a per-measurement bases. Ji at Abstract.
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 21, 25, 29, 31, and 33-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. PGPUB 2009/0176503A1 to Sampath et al. (“Sampath”) in view of U.S. Pat. PGPUB 2014/0099941A1 to Ji et al. (“Ji”).
As to claim 21, Sampath discloses:
A transmitting electronic device, comprising:
Sampath discloses a transmitting electronic device. Sampath at FIG 1 and ¶69 (“a second node (e.g. a transmitter)”).
an interface circuit configured to wirelessly communicate with at least a receiving electronic device, wherein the transmitting electronic device is configured to:
Sampath discloses the transmitter comprises a circuit for wirelessly communicating packets with a receiver. Sampath at FIG 14, transmitter and receiver 1420 and 1475 and at ¶39. The transmitting device is further configured to perform the following:
when received power associated with a channel during time intervals between received packets is in a range defined by a threshold value and a second threshold value that is less than the threshold value:
perform a remedial action other than a handover based at least in part on one of: the received power, and a metric associated with the received power; and
transmit, addressed to the receiving electronic device, a packet in a manner consistent with the remedial action; and
Sampath discloses, based on a power associated with a channel measured based on a received indicator outside of received data packets, that when the power is above a threshold, transmit power is reduced. This reads a remedial action including transmitting data in accordance with the remedial action. Sampath at ¶70. Sampath also discloses another threshold above which data transmission is terminated. Sampath at ¶69 (“calculate the radio frequency (RF) distance (e.g. channel gain) between itself and the first node, at 508. The reaction of a given node to the RUM may vary according to the RF distance. For instance, a comparison of the RF distance to a second predetermined threshold may be performed at 510. If the RF distance is below the second predetermined threshold (e.g., the first node and the second node are close to each other)”). Sampath discloses that this is a measurement of power. Id. at ¶45 (“nodes hearing the RxRUM can calculate their respective channel gains from the receiver (e.g., by measuring the received PSD and with knowledge of the constant PSD at which the RxRUM was sent) and can reduce their respective transmission power levels to mitigate interference.”).
Sampath does not disclose that the first threshold is a direct power threshold, but rather is one of distance determined from power.
Ji discloses an analogous invention to Sampath, namely a transmitting electronic device which compares received power to two thresholds and, if the received power is between them, performs a remedial action. Ji at FIG 1 element 110 and Abstract; Id. at FIG 3 steps 210 and 212. Specifically, Ji discloses determining received power associated with a channel, namely RSRP of a neighboring cell, during time intervals between received packets (the time interval will always be between some received packets). Ji states that a remedial action is performed if the interfering cell received power is above the sum of the serving cell power and an amount θΔλ, which reads a threshold. Id. at ¶¶46-47. Ji further states that, in the same system, instead when interfering cell received power is above a handover threshold, the cellular specification performs handover. Id. at ¶29 (“in order to avoid ping-pong effects, in general there are hysteresis values defined in the cellular specifications that typically only allow reselection or hand over when the strength of the neighboring cells become greater than the serving cell by more than a threshold”). Ji states that the handover threshold alone is insufficient and thus performing remedial action when the neighbor cell received strength is above the sum noted above is a beneficial addition. Id. at ¶38.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Patent Owner’s filing to modify Sampath in the manner of Ji, namely as to measuring power against a first threshold. Sampath discloses a number of possible metrics for comparison including power, and Ji discloses that RSRP used in a first threshold is one of a number of metrics that can be used and that it “is a metric in LTE for evaluating the cell strength”. Ji at ¶46. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such to merely be an example of a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. B., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
when the received power is greater than the threshold value:
not transmit packets on the channel while maintaining a connection between the transmitting electronic device and the receiving electronic device.
Sampath discloses that when the received power is above the first threshold, data transmission can be terminated. Sampath at ¶69. As this stoppage is only over certain channels, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that it still maintains a connection with the receiving device.
Further as to claim 25:
The transmitting electronic device of claim 21, wherein the remedial action comprises reducing a transmit power used when transmitting the packet.
Sampath discloses that the remedial action comprises reducing a transmit power. Sampath at FIG 5 step 518.
Further as to claim 29:
The transmitting electronic device of claim 21, wherein the received power is aggregated across the channel.
Sampath discloses that the power is PSD i.e. aggregated across the channel. Sampath at ¶67.
Further as to claim 31:
The transmitting electronic device of claim 21, wherein the remedial action is performed on a per-measurement basis for the received power.
Ji teaches that the remedial action is on a per-measurement bases. Ji at Abstract.
Further as to claim 33:
The transmitting electronic device of claim 21, wherein the transmitting electronic device further comprises one or more antennas coupled to the interface circuit.
Sampath discloses one or more antennas coupled to the interface. Sampath at FIG 14 element 1425.
Further as to claim 34:
The transmitting electronic device of claim 21, wherein the transmitting electronic device further comprises:
a processor; and
a memory, coupled to the processor, which is configured to store program instructions, wherein, when executed by the processor, the program instructions cause the transmitting electronic device to perform one or more operations comprising: performing the remedial action; and transmitting the packet.
Sampath discloses that the process is performed at the transmitting electronic device by a processor executing instructions stored in a memory. Sampath at FIG 14 and ¶111.
As to claim 35, Sampath discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for use in conjunction with a transmitting electronic device, the computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions to perform a remedial action, wherein, when executed by the transmitting electronic device, the program instructions cause the transmitting electronic device to perform one or more operations comprising:
Sampath discloses a transmitting electronic device. Sampath at FIG 1 and ¶69 (“a second node (e.g. a transmitter)”). Sampath discloses a process at the transmitting device which is performed at the transmitting electronic device by a processor executing instructions stored in a memory. Sampath at FIG 14 and ¶111. The transmitting device is further configured to perform the following:
when received power associated with a channel during time intervals between received packets is in a range defined by a threshold value and a second threshold value that is less than the threshold value:
performing the remedial action other than a handover based at least in part on one of: the received power, and a metric associated with the received power; and
transmitting, addressed to the receiving electronic device, a packet in a manner consistent with the remedial action; and
Sampath discloses, based on a power associated with a channel measured based on a received indicator outside of received data packets, that when the power is above a threshold, transmit power is reduced. This reads a remedial action including transmitting data in accordance with the remedial action. Sampath at ¶70. Sampath also discloses another threshold above which data transmission is terminated. Sampath at ¶69 (“calculate the radio frequency (RF) distance (e.g. channel gain) between itself and the first node, at 508. The reaction of a given node to the RUM may vary according to the RF distance. For instance, a comparison of the RF distance to a second predetermined threshold may be performed at 510. If the RF distance is below the second predetermined threshold (e.g., the first node and the second node are close to each other)”). Sampath discloses that this is a measurement of power. Id. at ¶45 (“nodes hearing the RxRUM can calculate their respective channel gains from the receiver (e.g., by measuring the received PSD and with knowledge of the constant PSD at which the RxRUM was sent) and can reduce their respective transmission power levels to mitigate interference.”).
Sampath does not disclose that the first threshold is a direct power threshold, but rather is one of distance determined from power.
Ji discloses an analogous invention to Sampath, namely a transmitting electronic device which compares received power to two thresholds and, if the received power is between them, performs a remedial action. Ji at FIG 1 element 110 and Abstract; Id. at FIG 3 steps 210 and 212. Specifically, Ji discloses determining received power associated with a channel, namely RSRP of a neighboring cell, during time intervals between received packets (the time interval will always be between some received packets). Ji states that a remedial action is performed if the interfering cell received power is above the sum of the serving cell power and an amount θΔλ, which reads a threshold. Id. at ¶¶46-47. Ji further states that, in the same system, instead when interfering cell received power is above a handover threshold, the cellular specification performs handover. Id. at ¶29 (“in order to avoid ping-pong effects, in general there are hysteresis values defined in the cellular specifications that typically only allow reselection or hand over when the strength of the neighboring cells become greater than the serving cell by more than a threshold”). Ji states that the handover threshold alone is insufficient and thus performing remedial action when the neighbor cell received strength is above the sum noted above is a beneficial addition. Id. at ¶38.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Patent Owner’s filing to modify Sampath in the manner of Ji, namely as to measuring power against a first threshold. Sampath discloses a number of possible metrics for comparison including power, and Ji discloses that RSRP used in a first threshold is one of a number of metrics that can be used and that it “is a metric in LTE for evaluating the cell strength”. Ji at ¶46. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such to merely be an example of a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. B., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
when the received power is greater than the threshold value:
not transmitting packets on the channel while maintaining a connection between the transmitting electronic device and the receiving electronic device.
Sampath discloses that when the received power is above the first threshold, data transmission can be terminated. Sampath at ¶69. As this stoppage is only over certain channels, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that it still maintains a connection with the receiving device.
Further as to claim 36:
The computer-program product of claim 35, wherein the remedial action comprises one of: selecting a modulation technique for the packet; selecting an antenna pattern for one or more antennas that is used in one of transmitting information addressed to the receiving electronic device and receiving information associated with the receiving electronic device; reducing a transmit power used when transmitting the packet; or selecting a data rate for use when transmitting the packet.
Sampath discloses that the remedial action comprises reducing a transmit power. Sampath at FIG 5 step 518. As the claim is listed in alternate form, this reads on the claim.
Further as to claim 37:
The computer-program product of claim 35, wherein the remedial action is performed on a per-measurement basis for the received power.
Ji teaches that the remedial action is on a per-measurement bases. Ji at Abstract.
As to claim 38, Sampath discloses:
A method for performing a remedial action, wherein the method comprises:
by a transmitting electronic device:
Sampath discloses a transmitting electronic device. Sampath at FIG 1 and ¶69 (“a second node (e.g. a transmitter)”). Sampath discloses that the device is configured to perform the following:
when received power associated with a channel during time intervals between received packets is in a range defined by a threshold value and a second threshold value that is less than the threshold value:
performing the remedial action other than a handover based at least in part on one of: the received power, and a metric associated with the received power; and
transmitting, addressed to a receiving electronic device, a packet in a manner consistent with the remedial action; and
Sampath discloses, based on a power associated with a channel measured based on a received indicator outside of received data packets, that when the power is above a threshold, transmit power is reduced. This reads a remedial action including transmitting data in accordance with the remedial action. Sampath at ¶70. Sampath also discloses another threshold above which data transmission is terminated. Sampath at ¶69 (“calculate the radio frequency (RF) distance (e.g. channel gain) between itself and the first node, at 508. The reaction of a given node to the RUM may vary according to the RF distance. For instance, a comparison of the RF distance to a second predetermined threshold may be performed at 510. If the RF distance is below the second predetermined threshold (e.g., the first node and the second node are close to each other)”). Sampath discloses that this is a measurement of power. Id. at ¶45 (“nodes hearing the RxRUM can calculate their respective channel gains from the receiver (e.g., by measuring the received PSD and with knowledge of the constant PSD at which the RxRUM was sent) and can reduce their respective transmission power levels to mitigate interference.”).
Sampath does not disclose that the first threshold is a direct power threshold, but rather is one of distance determined from power.
Ji discloses an analogous invention to Sampath, namely a transmitting electronic device which compares received power to two thresholds and, if the received power is between them, performs a remedial action. Ji at FIG 1 element 110 and Abstract; Id. at FIG 3 steps 210 and 212. Specifically, Ji discloses determining received power associated with a channel, namely RSRP of a neighboring cell, during time intervals between received packets (the time interval will always be between some received packets). Ji states that a remedial action is performed if the interfering cell received power is above the sum of the serving cell power and an amount θΔλ, which reads a threshold. Id. at ¶¶46-47. Ji further states that, in the same system, instead when interfering cell received power is above a handover threshold, the cellular specification performs handover. Id. at ¶29 (“in order to avoid ping-pong effects, in general there are hysteresis values defined in the cellular specifications that typically only allow reselection or hand over when the strength of the neighboring cells become greater than the serving cell by more than a threshold”). Ji states that the handover threshold alone is insufficient and thus performing remedial action when the neighbor cell received strength is above the sum noted above is a beneficial addition. Id. at ¶38.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Patent Owner’s filing to modify Sampath in the manner of Ji, namely as to measuring power against a first threshold. Sampath discloses a number of possible metrics for comparison including power, and Ji discloses that RSRP used in a first threshold is one of a number of metrics that can be used and that it “is a metric in LTE for evaluating the cell strength”. Ji at ¶46. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such to merely be an example of a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. B., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
when the received power is greater than the threshold value:
not transmitting packets on the channel while maintaining a connection between the transmitting electronic device and the receiving electronic device.
As noted above, as this is a contingent limitation the prior art does not need to meet it to teach the claim. However, in either case Sampath discloses that when the received power is above the first threshold, data transmission can be terminated. Sampath at ¶69. As this stoppage is only over certain channels, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that it still maintains a connection with the receiving device.
Further as to claim 39:
The method of claim 38, wherein the remedial action comprises one of: selecting a modulation technique for the packet; selecting an antenna pattern for one or more antennas that is used in one of transmitting information addressed to the receiving electronic device and receiving information associated with the receiving electronic device; reducing a transmit power used when transmitting the packet; or selecting a data rate for use when transmitting the packet.
Sampath discloses that the remedial action comprises reducing a transmit power. Sampath at FIG 5 step 518. As the claim is listed in alternate form, this reads on the claim.
Further as to claim 40:
The method of claim 38, wherein the remedial action is performed on a per- measurement basis for the received power.
Ji teaches that the remedial action is on a per-measurement bases. Ji at Abstract.
Claims 22, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampath in view of Ji as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. PGPUB 2012/0178386A1 to Pascolini et al. (“Pascolini”).
As to claim 22:
The transmitting electronic device of claim 21, wherein the remedial action comprises selecting a modulation technique for the packet.
While disclosing Patent Owner’s claim 21 above, Sampath in view of Ji fails to disclose that the remedial action comprises selecting a modulation technique for the packet.
Pascolini teaches an analogous invention to Sampath and Ji, namely a transmitting device which may perform remedial action in response to undesired interference. Pascolini at ¶58. Pascolini states that the remedial action includes selecting a modulation technique for the packet. Id. at ¶59 (“[e]xamples of remedial actions that can be taken to mitigate the effects of interference include: adjusting the wireless circuitry of device 10 (e.g., by tuning antenna structures 12 and/or adjusting front end circuitry 14), adjusting a transmit data rate, adjusting a transmit power level, adjusting the frequency at which signals are being transmitted, and adjusting the modulation scheme that is used in transmitting signals.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remedial actions of Sampath in view of Ji with the remedial actions of Pascolini in order to mitigate the effects of interference. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such to merely be an example of a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. B., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As to claim 24:
The transmitting electronic device of claim 21, wherein transmitting electronic device further comprises one or more antennas coupled to the interface circuit, and the remedial action comprises selecting an antenna pattern for the one or more antennas; and
wherein the antenna pattern is used in at least one of: transmitting information addressed to the receiving electronic device; and receiving information associated with the receiving electronic device.
While disclosing Patent Owner’s claim 21 above, and disclosing one or more antennas (Sampath at FIG 14), Sampath in view of Ji fails to disclose that the remedial action comprises selecting an antenna pattern.
Pascolini teaches an analogous invention to Sampath and Ji, namely a transmitting device which may perform remedial action in response to undesired interference. Pascolini at ¶58. Pascolini states that the remedial action includes selecting an antenna pattern for the packet. Id. at ¶59 (“[e]xamples of remedial actions that can be taken to mitigate the effects of interference include: adjusting the wireless circuitry of device 10 (e.g., by tuning antenna structures 12 and/or adjusting front end circuitry 14), adjusting a transmit data rate, adjusting a transmit power level, adjusting the frequency at which signals are being transmitted, and adjusting the modulation scheme that is used in transmitting signals.”). See also id. at ¶40.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remedial actions of Sampath in view of Ji with the remedial actions of Pascolini in order to mitigate the effects of interference. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such to merely be an example of a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. B., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As to claim 26:
The transmitting electronic device of claim 21, wherein the remedial action comprises selecting a data rate for use when transmitting the packet.
While disclosing Patent Owner’s claim 21 above, Sampath in view of Ji fails to disclose that the remedial action comprises selecting a data rate for the packet.
Pascolini teaches an analogous invention to Sampath and Ji, namely a transmitting device which may perform remedial action in response to undesired interference. Pascolini at ¶58. Pascolini states that the remedial action includes selecting a data rate for the packet. Id. at ¶59 (“[e]xamples of remedial actions that can be taken to mitigate the effects of interference include: adjusting the wireless circuitry of device 10 (e.g., by tuning antenna structures 12 and/or adjusting front end circuitry 14), adjusting a transmit data rate, adjusting a transmit power level, adjusting the frequency at which signals are being transmitted, and adjusting the modulation scheme that is used in transmitting signals.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remedial actions of Sampath in view of Ji with the remedial actions of Pascolini in order to mitigate the effects of interference. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such to merely be an example of a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. B., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampath in view of Ji and Pascolini as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. PGPUB 2006/0109931A1 to Asai et al. (“Asai”).
As to claim 23:
The transmitting electronic device of claim 22, wherein the modulation technique is further based at least in part on a channel correlation interval.
Sampath in view of Ji and Pascolini discloses Patent Owner’s claim 22 above, but fails to disclose that the modulation technique is based at least in part on a channel correlation interval.
Asai discloses an analogous invention, namely a system and method for determining interference and acting thereon. Asai at FIG 1 and ¶¶41-43. Asai teaches wherein the modulation technique is further based on, among other things, a channel correlation interval. Id. at ¶75(“[t]he interference power level estimation unit 103 estimates the interference power level for each frequency band”) (“[t]he multi-antenna transmission/receiving mode determination unit 110 determines a multi-antenna transmission/receiving mode, such as BF, STC, E-SDM, or SDM, based on the required transmission rate and the inter-antenna channel correlations estimated by the channel
correlation estimation unit 104.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modulation and coding scheme of Sampath in view of Ji and Pascolini with the method from Asai in order to reduce the influence of interference signals on transmission signals between a receiver and transmitter as suggested by Asia. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such to merely be an example of a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. B., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampath in view of Ji as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. PGPUB 20130208587A1 to Bala et al. (“Bala”) and U.S. Pat. 7,466,682 B1 to Ribas et al. (“Ribas”).
As to claim 27:
The transmitting electronic device of claim 21, wherein the remedial action comprises:
determining a cumulative distribution function based at least in part on the received power; and
estimating a channel capacity based at least in part on the determined cumulative distribution function.
Sampath in view of Ji discloses Patent Owner’s claim 21 above from which claim 27 depends, but does not teach determining a cumulative distribution function based on the power and estimating a channel capacity thereon.
Bala discloses an analogous invention to Sampath and Ji, namely measuring received power of a signal and performing actions based thereon. Bala at ¶¶154 and 160. Specifically, Bala discloses that the determining of received power may comprise determining a cumulative distribution function based on it. Id. at FIG 20 and ¶¶226, 229, and 230.
Ribas discloses estimating a channel capacity based on the determined cumulative distribution function. Ribas at 1:67-2:7, 6:23-39, 6:40-54, and 7:46-55.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remedial actions of Sampath in view of Ji with the CDF of interference used by Bala and the channel capacity estimation of Ribas in order to determine if a channel is busy as suggested by Bala, and determine link capacity as suggested by Ribas. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such to merely be an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Further as to claim 28:
The transmitting electronic device of claim 27, wherein the remedial action further comprises setting a clear channel assessment based at least in part on the determined cumulative distribution function.
Bala further discloses a clear channel assessment based on the function. Bala at ¶230 (“[a]s an example, -72 dBm may be a CCA threshold and the table below may provide probabilities of sensing a channel as busy for a number of cases”).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampath in view of Ji as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. PGPUB 2016/0037525A1 to Malmirchegini et al. (“Malmirchegini”).
As to claim 30:
The transmitting electronic device of claim 21, wherein the received power is determined per subcarrier in the channel.
While disclosing Patent Owner’s claim 21 from which claim 30 depends, Sampath and Ji fail to disclose that the received power is determined per subcarrier.
Malmirchegini discloses an analogous invention, namely comparing interference power to a threshold and acting thereon. Malmirchegini at FIG 2 and ¶¶35-36, noting measurement of RSRP like in Sampath and Ji. Specifically, Malmirchegini discloses that the received power may be determined per subcarrier. Id. at Abstract and ¶39.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measuring method of Sampath in view of Ji with the method from Malmirchegini in order to select a candidate operating frequency of the set of candidate operating frequencies having a lowest interference cost as the operating frequency as suggested by Malmirchegini. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such to merely be an example of a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. B., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampath in view of Ji as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Bala.
As to claim 32:
The transmitting electronic device of claim 21, wherein the transmitting electronic device is configured to determine a cumulative distribution function based at least in part on the received power; and
wherein the metric corresponds to a noise floor in the cumulative distribution function.
While disclosing Patent Owner’s invention of claim 21, Sampath in view of Ji fail to disclose determining a cumulative distribution function based on the power and a metric corresponding to a noise floor.
Bala discloses an analogous invention to Sampath and Ji, namely measuring received power of a signal and performing actions based thereon. Bala at ¶¶154 and 160. Specifically, Bala discloses that the determining of received power may comprise determining a cumulative distribution function based on it including a noise floor. Id. at FIG 20 and ¶¶226, 229, and 230.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remedial actions of Sampath in view of Ji with the CDF of interference used by Bala in order to determine if a channel is busy as suggested by Bala. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such to merely be an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Charles Craver whose telephone number is (571) 272-7849. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30-5:30 PT Pacific Time.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Fischer can be reached on 571-272-6779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Signed,
/CHARLES R CRAVER/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/ROBERT J HANCE/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights