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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Jadhav does not disclose the claimed “energy budget”, “energy exposure limit”, and “total energy requirement” as separate energy levels. This evaluation is not correct. Jadhav manages a SAR budget which considers energy allocation over a rolling time window. This SAR budget is conceptually different than the limit that it is based off of because the limit in Jadhav is the value at an instance of time that can be compared over a period of time, whereas the SAR budget of Jadhav is an allotment that can exceed the limit at any given time but cannot average over the limit for a period of time. Jadhav considers the total energy requirement of data to transmit versus how much of the budget to transmit data over the time period remains in col. 3, line 56-col. 4, line 1.
Further, the applicant is attempting to claim a condition which is variable as an absolute property of the invention in the “wherein” clause but does not have support for claiming the invention in this manner. If the applicant wants to claim the evaluation of a condition, as it is disclosed in paragraphs 82 and 83, then the applicant should explicitly claim the evaluation of a condition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-25 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The applicant does not appear to have support for the following limitations that are added to the “wherein” clause that appears after the first allocation step:
the energy budget is based on an energy exposure limit for the transmission timeframe, and
the energy exposure limit is less than a total energy requirement for transmission of buffered data on the set of communication links;
There is no disclosure that “the energy exposure limit”, which defines the budget, is always less than a total energy requirement for transmission of buffered data on the set of communication links. Rather, the applicant has disclosed that the “energy exposure limit” is a condition to be evaluate the requirements of the data to transmit against that may or may not be less than the total energy required to transmit remaining data. See paragraphs 82 and 83 of the specification. If the applicant wants to claim the evaluation of a variable condition, then they should explicitly do so in the manner in which the variable condition is disclosed as being evaluated, rather than using a nebulous “wherein” clause to define absolute conditions which are not disclosed.
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 first amount of energy and the second amount of energy are allocated for communications that have a threshold priority value (col. 6, lines 55-59 and col. 13, lines 20-35, the communications are specific to certain radios and thus they have a “threshold priority value” according to the vague context of the claim and the broad context of paragraphs 69 and 74 of the applicant’s disclosure), the energy budget comprises a transmission energy available to the UE for a transmission timeframe (col. 3, lines 49-55), the energy budget is based on an energy exposure limit for the transmission timeframe (col. 1, line 48-col. 2, line 9, the SAR budget is the amount of energy used per a time window that can be higher than the exposure limit at a given instance but must average below the limit for a time period (an integration function) compared to the energy exposure limit which would be a uniform value for the timeframe), and the energy exposure limit is less than a total energy requirement transmission of buffered data on the set of communication links (col. 3, line 56-col. 4, line 1, the scenario where there is more data than allowed by the requirement is covered, among other scenarios); 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 traffic demand for the first communication link, and the fourth amount of energy is allocated according to a second traffic demand for the second communication link (col. 4, lines 1-5, more data can be allocated when it is below the budget and 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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