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 .
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 1, 14, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NADAKUDUTI et al. (Patent No: US 2020/0015171 A1), hereinafter, NADAKUDUTI.
Regarding Claim 1, NADAKUDUTI teaches,
A method of wireless communication by a wireless device, comprising: determining a first budget for one or more radios; -Fig. 14; Paragraph [0005, 0170] ([0005] recites, “The wireless device includes a first transmitter configured to transmit first signals according to a first wireless communication technology, a second transmitter configured to transmit second signals according to a second wireless communication technology, and a processor coupled to the first and second transmitters. The processor is configured to determine a specific absorption rate (SAR) distribution for the first wireless communication technology, determine a power density (PD) distribution for the second wireless communication technology, combine the SAR distribution and the PD distribution to generate a combined RF exposure distribution, determine at least one first maximum allowable power level and at least one second maximum allowable power level for a future time slot based on the combined RF exposure distribution, set at least one transmission power limit for the first transmitter in the future time slot based on the at least one first maximum allowable power level, and set at least one transmission power limit for the second transmitter in the future time slot based on the at least one second maximum allowable power level.”)
Fig. 5; Paragraph [0124, 0130] ([0124] recites, “..the WTRU may be configured with a minimum guaranteed power for each cell group (CG), as a ratio of the total available power PCMAX.” [0130] recites, “a total available uplink transmission power may be split as “guaranteed” and/or “remaining” components. A power level for each of the uplink transmissions (e.g., PUSCH, PUCCH) may be allocated according to a PCM operation.” PCMAX is the first budget. Fig. 5 shows representative power allocation for one or more cell groups (CGs))
converting the first budget to a second budget for the one or more radios in response to a transition from a first maximum time-averaged radio frequency (RF) exposure limit with a first time window to a second maximum time-averaged RF exposure limit with a second time window; -Fig. 14; Paragraph [0005, 0170-0174] ([0173-0174] recites, “ At block 1440, at least one first maximum allowable power level and at least one second maximum allowable power level are determined for a future time slot based on the combined RF exposure distribution. For example, the combined RF exposure distribution may be a function of transmission power levels in the future time slot. In this example, the at least one first maximum allowable power level and the at least one second maximum allowable power levels may be determined by determining power levels for the transmission power levels that result in a peak value of the combined RF exposure distribution being equal to or less than a limit value (e.g., limit value of one) that ensures RF exposure compliance. At block 1450, at least one transmission power limit for a first transmitter in the future time slot is set based on the at least one first maximum allowable power level. Setting the at least transmission power limit for the first transmitter (e.g., first transmitter 120) based on the at least one first maximum allowable power level may limit transmission power levels of the first transmitter in the future time slot to the at least one first maximum allowable power level or limit a time-averaged transmission power level of the first transmitter over the future time slot to the at least one first maximum allowable power level.”)
and transmitting a signal with the one or more radios at a transmit power determined based at least in part on the second maximum time-averaged RF exposure limit and the second budget. -Paragraph [0175] ([0175] recites, “At block 1460, at least one transmission power limit for a second transmitter in the future time slot is set based on the at least one second maximum allowable power level. Setting the at least transmission power limit for the second transmitter (e.g., second transmitter 130) based on the at least one second maximum allowable power level may limit transmission power levels of the second transmitter in the future time slot to the at least one second maximum allowable power level or limit a time-averaged transmission power level of the second transmitter over the future time slot to the at least one second maximum allowable power level.”)
Claim 14 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 1 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 1. Claim 14 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
NADAKUDUTI further teaches,
An apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor being configured to -Fig. 1; Paragraph [0033] ([0033 recites, “Paragraph [0026] ([0026] recites, “The wireless device 100 includes a processor 110, and a memory 115 coupled to the processor 110. The memory 115 may store instructions that, when executed by the processor 110, cause the processor 110 to perform one or more of the operations described herein. “)
Regarding Claim 27, NADAKUDUTI teaches the limitations of Claim 14.
NADAKUDUTI further teaches,
The apparatus of claim 14, further comprising a transmitter configured to transmit the signal with the one or more radios at the transmit power. -Fig. 14; Paragraph [0005, 0174-0175] ([0005] recites, “The wireless device includes a first transmitter configured to transmit first signals according to a first wireless communication technology, a second transmitter configured to transmit second signals according to a second wireless communication technology…” [0174-0175] recites, “one transmission power limit for a first transmitter in the future time slot is set based on the at least one first maximum allowable power level. Setting the at least transmission power limit for the first transmitter (e.g., first transmitter 120) based on the at least one first maximum allowable power level may limit transmission power levels of the first transmitter….one transmission power limit for a second transmitter in the future time slot is set based on the at least one second maximum allowable power level. Setting the at least transmission power limit for the second transmitter (e.g., second transmitter 130) based on the at least one second maximum allowable power level may limit transmission power levels of the second transmitter…”)
Claim 28 is essentially the same as Claim 14 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 14. Claim 28 is rejected under the same rational as claim 14.
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 2-4, 6, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
NADAKUDUTI in view of EL HAJJ et al. (Patent No: US 20220345168 A1), hereinafter, EL HAJJ.
Regarding Claim 2, NADAKUDUTI teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
NADAKUDUTI does not explicitly teach,
The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the signal comprises using the second budget to determine the transmit power for at least a greatest duration of the first time window and the second time window.
However, in an analogous invention, EL HAJJ teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the signal comprises using the second budget to determine the transmit power for at least a greatest duration of the first time window and the second time window. -Paragraph [0032, 0035] ([0032] recites, “use a sliding time window averaging to calculate the average power (Avg_Pow) of a device during a given averaging time (Ta) defined by regulatory requirements. For example, for FCC compliance, the Ta=100 seconds is for frequencies below 3 GHz. The Avg_Pow is calculated each Tr period defining the resolution or the granularity. Two threshold levels of power are utilized by the algorithm and are denoted as the upper and lower thresholds.”[0035] recites, “the Avg_Pow is calculated for the time-window duration Ta and compared to the UppThresh and the LowThresh of the active mode to determine if Dynamic Power Reduction (DPR) should be turned ON or OFF to maintain SAR compliance..”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “EVALUATING RADIO FREQUENCY (RF) EXPOSURE IN REAL TIME” proposed by NADAKUDUTI to include the concept of “transmitting the signal comprises using the second budget to determine the transmit power for at least a greatest duration of the first time window and the second time window.” of EL HAJJ . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce radiation exposure to users while also maintaining high levels of link quality to improve user experience are desired [0004].
Regarding Claim 3, NADAKUDUTI teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
NADAKUDUTI does not explicitly teach,
The method of claim 1, wherein converting the first budget comprises converting the first budget to the second budget based on a conversion factor.
However, in an analogous invention, EL HAJJ teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein converting the first budget comprises converting the first budget to the second budget based on a conversion factor. -Paragraph [0035] ([0035] recites, “the Avg_Pow is calculated for the time-window duration Ta and compared to the UppThresh and the LowThresh of the active mode to determine if Dynamic Power Reduction (DPR) should be turned ON or OFF to maintain SAR compliance. When the Avg_Pow is at or exceeds the UppThresh, DPR is turned ON to limit transmitter maximum output power to a reduced level defined by DPR_ON. In other words, when the Avg_Pow is at or exceeds the UppThresh, a power back-off is applied” a power back-off is the conversion factor, power back-off is applied when DPR is turned on)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “EVALUATING RADIO FREQUENCY (RF) EXPOSURE IN REAL TIME” proposed by NADAKUDUTI to include the concept of “converting the first budget comprises converting the first budget to the second budget based on a conversion factor” of EL HAJJ . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce radiation exposure to users while also maintaining high levels of link quality to improve user experience are desired [0004].
Regarding Claim 4, NADAKUDUTI and EL HAJJ teach the limitations of Claim 3.
NADAKUDUTI further teaches,
The method of claim 3, wherein the second budget is equal to a product of the first budget and the conversion factor. -Paragraph [0184] ([0184] recites, “In an inner loop, the processor 110 determines maximum allowable power levels for the sub-time slots 1515(1) to 1515(N) one at a time at a rate of approximately one per Δt/N seconds, where N is the number of sub-time slots in the future time slot 715(q) and Δt is the time duration of the future time slot 715(q). For example, if N equals 50 and Δt equals 5 seconds, then the processor 110 determines a maximum allowable power level for one of the sub-time slots 1515(1) to 1515(N) approximately every 100 milliseconds. Thus, the inner loop increases the update rate by a factor of N. “
Regarding Claim 6, NADAKUDUTI and EL HAJJ teach the limitations of Claim 3.
NADAKUDUTI further teaches,
The method of claim 3, wherein the conversion factor is based on a ratio of the second time window to the first time window. -Paragraph [0135] ([0135] recites, “he first time window 505 for the time-averaged normalized SAR distribution and the second time window 705 for the time-averaged normalized PD distribution may be different in length. In this regard, FIG. 9 shows an example in which the first time window 505 is longer than the second time window 705. For example, the first time window 505 may be approximately 6 minutes in length and the second time window 705 may be approximately 2 minutes in length” i.e., PD distribution or the conversion factor is based on the ratio of second time window to first time window (2/6 in this case))
Claim 15 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 2 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 2. Claim 15 is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Claim 16 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 3 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 3. Claim 16 is rejected under the same rational as claim 3.
Claim 17 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 4 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 4. Claim 17 is rejected under the same rational as claim 4.
Claim 19 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 6 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 6. Claim 19 is rejected under the same rational as claim 6.
Claims 5, 7-13, 18, 20-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims
Response to Argument(s)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
The examiner changed the prior-art of the independent claim (Claim 1).
The Applicant suggested in their argument that, part of the claim 1 , “converting the first budget to a second budget for the one or more radios in response to a transition from a first maximum time-averaged radio frequency (RF) exposure limit with a first time window to a second maximum time-averaged RF exposure limit with a second time window” is not addressed by the prior-art used (Page 9, Paragraph 2).
In response, the Examiner changed the prior-art and, the changed prior-art teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 including the above part which the applicant has concern. Therefore, the argument does not apply to the newly used prior-art (Refer to the Claim 1 rejection above) and the examiner maintains rejection status.
In the same line of argument, the dependent claims are also retained in rejection status.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED SAIFUDDIN whose telephone number is (703)756-4581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6:00pm.
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, KHALED M KASSIM can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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.
/AHMED SAIFUDDIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475