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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant does not appear to have any arguments regarding the independent claims but instead argues features covered by claims 31-33. The current rejection has been remapped to address the applicant’s amendments and new claims 31-33.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10-12, 20-22, and 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Number 10,965,335 to Jadhav et al.
As to claim 1, Jadhav teaches a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to: allocate, from an energy budget of the UE (col. 3, lines 49-55, SAR allocation budget), a first amount of energy to a first communication link of a set of communication links and a second amount of energy to a second communication link of the set of communication links (col. 3, lines 56-67, energy is allocated to radio transceivers and other RF components on the device), wherein: the energy budget comprises a transmission energy available to the UE for a transmission timeframe (col. 3, lines 49-55), and the energy budget is less than a total energy requirement for the set of communication links (col. 3, lines 28-55, the SAR allocation budget keeps the device below the SAR requirement, the applicant defines the term “requirement” as an MPE/SAR limit in paragraphs 55, 56, 58, and 74 of their specification); allocate, from a remainder of the energy budget after the first amount of energy and the second amount of energy are allocated, a third amount of energy to the first communication link and a fourth amount of energy to the second communication link (col. 4, lines 1-5), wherein: the third amount of energy is allocated according a first energy requirement for the first communication link, and the fourth amount of energy is allocated according to a second energy requirement for the second communication link (col. 9, lines 17-19, SAR can be managed per antenna in addition to per device); and transmit in accordance with the third amount of energy or the fourth amount of energy (col. 5, lines 1-5).
As to claims 11 and 21, they are rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
As to claims 2, 12, and 22, the different radio antennas are bearer types.
As to claims 10 and 20, Jadhav teaches the third amount of energy and the fourth amount of energy are based at least in part on a radio characteristic associated with the first communication link and the second communication link (col. 12, line 42-col. 13, line 35); the SAR budget in Jadhav is a radio frequency exposure design level, the current allocation is considered a load and channel metric.
As to claims 31-33, Jadhav teaches the third amount of energy is allocated according to a first energy allocation coefficient (col. 12, lines 42-62) that is based on the total energy requirement (col. 10, lines 18-30) and the first energy requirement for the first communication link (col. 9, lines 3-38), and wherein the fourth amount of energy is allocated according to a second energy allocation coefficient (col. 12, lines 42-62) that is based on the total energy requirement (col. 10, lines 18-30) and the second energy requirement for the second communication link (col. 9, lines 3-38).
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.
Claim(s) 3-5, 8, 9, 13-15, 18, 19, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 10,965,335 to Jadhav et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0359330 by Zacharias et al.
As to claims 3, 13, and 23, Jadhav teaches the subject matter of claims 1, 11, and 21 including an amount of energy based on a bear configuration of a first communication link; however, Jadhav does not explicitly teach that a first bearer configuration indicates a split bearer associated with the first and second communication links.
Zacharias teaches allocating an amount of energy based on a bearer configuration of a first communication link that indicates a split bearer associated with two communication links (paragraphs 75, 105, and 136).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the device transmission power management art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Jadhav regarding managing the energy of communication links with the teachings of Zacharias regarding managing energy in a split bearer configuration because the interfaces of the device shown in Figure 2 described in Zacharias could be used to communicate in a split bearer configuration.
As to claims 4, 14, and 24, Jadhav teaches the subject matter of claims 1, 11, and 21; however, Jadhav does not explicitly teach allocating energy based on data volume associated with communication links.
Zacharias teaches allocating energy to links based at least in part on a first buffered data volume associated with the first communication link and a second buffered data volume associated with the second communication link (paragraph 130-136).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the device transmission power management art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Jadhav regarding managing the energy of communication links with the teachings of Zacharias regarding considering buffer volume because considering the data buffers associated with links will improve performance while managing power usage.
As to claims 5, 15, and 25, see paragraph 126 of Zacharias.
As to claims 8, 9, 18 and 19, see paragraphs 130-136 of Zacharias.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 10,965,335 to Jadhav et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0359330 by Zacharias et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0138643 by Saini et al.
As to claims 6, 7, 16, and 17, the Jadhav-Zacharias combination shows claims 5 and 15 to be obvious however they do not suggest making a predication based on average throughput or periodic traffic.
Saini shows that predicting traffic based on past average throughput and periodic traffic (paragraph 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the device transmission power management art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Zacharias regarding predicting traffic with the teachings of Saini regarding using past average and periodic traffic to predict traffic because Saini provides alternatives to the estimates disclosed by Zacharias. The Examiner notes that in paragraphs 85-88, the applicant discloses that generic statistical models, machine learning, and AI can be used to carry out the invention without disclosing details about how these models are actually performed based on the lack of detail disclosed, it can be assumed the applicant thought these techniques to be so well known, they did not need to disclose any detail about them.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights