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 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 is improper because Badic does not teach,
…wherein the sweeping occurs for the beams of the UE that have a power backoff that is less than a threshold.
Specifically, the applicant argues that para. 0234 of Badic, which recites,
“Accordingly, in some aspects controller 3512 may select sectors in stage 3612 based on a predefined allowable transmit power threshold, such as where controller 3512 only selects sectors with maximum allowable transmit powers that are greater than the predefined allowable transmit power threshold.”
does not teach the above limitation. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The invention of Badic makes clear that areas with maximum allowable transmit powers greater than the threshold are areas where the power back-off needed is less than a threshold. Para. 0228 of Badic states,
“Accordingly, if terminal device 3306 is transmitting on a sector of antenna system 3502 that points at a human object, terminal device 3306 may need to reduce its transmit power to comply with the human exposure power limits.”
In other words, a reduced maximum allowable power in a given sector requires a transmit power backoff. Per para. 0234 of Badic, only sectors with a maximum allowable power greater than a threshold are searched. In view of para. 0228 of Badic, it is clear that those areas must have a power back-off less than a threshold such that the maximum allowable power remains greater than the threshold.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Badic et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0175919 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Badic et al. discloses,
A method (para. 0002, “Various aspects relate generally to methods and devices for radiation exposure control in beamforming technologies.”) comprising: determining whether to activate one or more radar modules of a user equipment (UE) based on whether the UE performs initial access or beam failure recovery (para. 0221, “As shown in FIG. 36, beamsweeping may be triggered in stage 3602. …For example, controller 3512 may trigger beamsweeping when terminal device 3306 is first connecting to the network (e.g., initial network access), such as where terminal device 3306 first connects to network access node 3302 and triggers beamsweeping to find a sector pair for transmitting and receiving with network access node 3302. In another example, controller 3512 may detect that the radio link with network access node 3302 fails or degrades.” The examiner notes that, per para. 0254, “In some aspects, terminal device 3306 may use radar controller 3516 and antenna system 3502 as a sensor to execute flow chart 3600 described above in FIG. 36. Accordingly, instead of using sensor 3514 to detect blocking objects around terminal device 3306 in stage 3604, radar controller 3516 may detect blocking objects by using antenna system 3502 to radiate a transmit signal and to receive the reflected signal and by then processing the reflected signal to determine the distance and direction of blocking objects.”); in response to determining that the one or more radar modules are to be activated (fig. 36, step 3602 leads to further steps 3604-3618.): activating all of the one or more radar modules in a time sequence, one or multiple radar modules at a time (para. 0223, “After controller 3512 detects that beamsweeping is triggered in stage 3602, controller 3512 may instruct sensor 3514 to sense blocking objects around terminal device 3306 in stage 3604.” The examiner notes that sensor 3514 is described as being, in an exemplary configuration, the radar controller 3516 in tandem with the antenna system 3502. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “activating all of the one or more radar modules in a time sequence, one or multiple radar modules at a time” includes methods in which the modules are all activated at the same time); determining a power backoff for at least one communication module of the UE (para. 0229, “… controller 3512 may identify the sectors that are also blocked by human objects. Controller 3512 may then estimate the maximum allowable transmit power for these sectors. For example, controller 3512 may use a human exposure power limit (e.g., for an MPE or SAR restriction) and, based on the distance between terminal device 3306 and the human object, determine a maximum allowable transmit power that could be used for a given sector without exceeding the human exposure power limit.” The examiner notes that this is part of step 3606 in fig. 6, thus it occurs after beamsweeping is triggered); and determining a UE uplink (UL) beam, a UE downlink (DL) beam, a base station (BS) UL beam, and a BS DL beam based on the power backoff and a sweeping of beams of the UE (fig. 36, step 3618. The examiner notes that, in co. 24, lines 51-54, the reference notes that a sector is the best antenna beam for a wireless link, and notes that, for a given selected sector, “The terminal device can then configure its antenna array to receive with this selected sector. In various cases, the terminal device and network access node may reverse this procedure to identify a receive sector for the network access node to use, or may sweep in the transmit direction to identify optimal transmit sectors.” The receive beam of the terminal device is a UE DL beam, the receive beam of the network access node is a BS UL beam, the transmit beam of the terminal device is a UE UL beam and the transmit beam of the network access node is the BS DL beam), wherein the sweeping occurs for the beams of the UE that have a power backoff that is less than a threshold (para. 0234, “Accordingly, in some aspects controller 3512 may select sectors in stage 3612 based on a predefined allowable transmit power threshold, such as where controller 3512 only selects sectors with maximum allowable transmit powers that are greater than the predefined allowable transmit power threshold.”).
Regarding claim 2, Badic et al. discloses the method of claim 1. Badic et al. further discloses,
…wherein the power backoff for the at least one communication module is determined based on a comparison of a field of view (FoV) of the at least one communication module and a FoV of at least one of the one or more radar modules that correspond to the at least one communication module (para. 0259, “For example, because terminal device 3306 uses the same antenna array for both object sensing and radio transmission, the sensor beams may be spatially correlated with the antenna beams.” The examiner notes that spatially correlating sensor and antenna beams is a comparison of their respective FoVs).
Regarding claim 3, Badic et al. discloses the method of claim 2. Badic et al. further discloses,
…wherein the power backoff for the at least one communication module is determined at a module level, an angular region level, or a beam level of the UE (fig. 34, para. 0216, “As shown in FIG. 34, the sensor of terminal device 3306 may detect object 3402 in sensor direction A and may determine that object 3402 is a human object. Because sectors 1-3 of antenna array 3308 overlap directionally with sensor direction A, terminal device 3306 may to reduce its transmit power in these directions so its transmissions comply with human exposure power restrictions (e.g., MPE and SAR).” The examiner notes that the beams 1-7 are defined by the reference as the antenna sectors of the UE, and that in para. 0209 the applicant states that a directional antenna beam is also referred to as an antenna sector.).
Regarding claim 6, Badic et al. discloses the method of claim 1. Badic et al. further discloses,
…using the power backoff to assist in multi-module operation to determine: which communication modules of the UE should be swept when a signal quality metric of a serving module falls below a second threshold; or whether or not a switch from the serving module is to be performed (para. 0230-0232, “After estimating the maximum allowable transmit power for sectors with human objects, controller 3512 may, in stage 3612, select sectors to sweep during the beamsweeping…Continuing with the example based on FIG. 34, controller 3512 may use 25% as the predefined blocking threshold, and may select only sectors that have blocking levels less than 25% in stage 3612. Controller 3512 may therefore select sectors 1 and 4 to 7 but may omit sectors 2 and 3. This predefined blocking threshold of 25% is exemplary and can be scaled to any other value.” The examiner notes that, understanding the first threshold to be the power backoff due to a human blocking the UE, the second threshold in the reference is the percentage of a region that is blocked).
Regarding claim 7, Badic et al. discloses the method of claim 6. Badic et al. further discloses,
…performing module sweeping on only the communication modules that are determined to be swept (para. 0237, “After obtaining the selected sectors, controller 3512 may perform beamsweeping on the selected sectors in stage 3614.”).
Regarding claim 8, the same citations and reasoning as corresponding method claim 1 are applied. Badic et al. further discloses,
A user equipment (UE) comprising: a transceiver (fig. 37, transceiver 3504); and a processor operably connected to the transceiver (fig. 37, radar controller 3516),
and makes it clear that the processor is configured to carry out the method steps discussed in reference to claim 1 (para. 0254, “In some aspects, terminal device 3306 may use radar controller 3516 and antenna system 3502 as a sensor to execute flow chart 3600 described above in FIG. 36.”).
Regarding claim 9, the same citations and reasoning as corresponding method claim 2 are applied.
Regarding claim 10, the same citations and reasoning as corresponding method claim 3 are applied.
Regarding claim 13, the same citations and reasoning as corresponding method claim 6 are applied.
Regarding claim 14, the same citations and reasoning as corresponding method claim 7 are applied.
Regarding claim 15, the same citations and reasoning as corresponding method claim 1 are applied. Badic et al. further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium that causes the processor to carry out the method steps discussed above in reference to corresponding method claim 1 (para. 0113, “Memory 904 may be a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions for one or more of an evaluation subroutine 904a, a beam determination subroutine 904b, a beam communication subroutine 904c, and/or a beam adjustment subroutine 904d.” The examiner notes that para. 0114 states that the evaluation subroutine includes the detection of a body based on gathered information, determining an MPS threshold, and determining a link quality, while the beam determination subroutine includes determining beam pairs to use for UL/DL communication).
Regarding claim 16, the same citations and reasoning as corresponding method claim 2 are applied.
Regarding claim 17, the same citations and reasoning as corresponding method claim 3 are applied.
Regarding claim 20, the same citations and reasoning as corresponding method claim 6 are applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badic et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0175919 A1) in view of Tang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11349545 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Badic et al. as modified by Tang et al. discloses the method of claim 1. Badic et al. does not disclose,
…when the BS UL beam is not the same as the BS DL beam, determining whether there is a preference for UL communication; in response to a determination of the preference for UL communication, reporting the BS UL beam to the BS, and using the UE UL beam for data transmission and reception; and in response to a determination of no preference for UL communication, reporting the BS DL beam to the BS, and using the UE DL beam for data transmission and reception.
Tang et al. discloses,
…when the BS UL beam is not the same as the BS DL beam (col. 16, lines 50-51, “in practice however, the preferred UL and DL beams may not be the same, e.g., they may not correspond.”), determining whether there is a preference for UL communication (col. 24, lines 36-50, “As shown both reports may include a report number, e.g., for DL (FIG. 19) or UL (FIG. 20). Further, each report may identify any number of beams (e.g., to be used by the BS for DL or UL, respectively). The beams may be identified by SSBRI, CRI, or other indicators. In the illustrated examples, four beams are shown in each report, but other numbers of beams are possible. RSRP and/or other measurements for each beam may be provided. The beams may be implicitly or explicitly ranked, e.g., as shown the beams may be ranked by the order in which they are presented in the report. The DL beam rankings may be based on the measurements (e.g., whether or not measurements are included in the report). The UL rankings may be based at least in part on constraints, e.g., MPE, hardware, power, etc.” The examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “preference for UL communication” includes scenarios where the UE has a preference as to how the UL communication occurs, as well as scenarios where the UE has a preference for UL over DL communication.); in response to a determination of the preference for UL communication, reporting the BS UL beam to the BS (col. 21, lines 52-55, “The UE may transmit a report or reports to the BS 102 (1010). The report(s) may indicate the recommended UL and/or DL beam(s) which may or may not correspond to each other.”), and using the UE UL beam for data transmission and reception (col. 25, lines 18-23, “For example, if beam #n0 offers the highest RSRP, but also has a relatively high power backoff (e.g., indicating that the UE may use low transmit power with beam #n0), the BS may select beam #n1 (e.g., with the second best RSRP, but a lower backoff, thus indicating that the UL beam including beam #n1 may achieve better performance).”); and in response to a determination of no preference for UL communication, reporting the BS DL beam to the BS, and using the UE DL beam for data transmission and reception (col. 23 line 63-col. 24, line 1, “In context of non-corresponding UL and DL beams, such a report that may be used to, at least in part, indicate to the BS that the reported (e.g., preferred for DL) beam is (or is not) preferred for UL, e.g., to indicate that the BS is or is not encouraged to use the reported beam for UL reception.”).
Tang et al. and Badic et al. are both analogous to the claimed invention because both references disclose methods and systems for beamsweeping and beam determination in wireless communication systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the beam selection method of Badic et al. with the non-corresponding UL/DL beams of Tang et al. because beam non-correspondence allows the BS and UE to select separate UL/DL beams, thus achieving maximum performance while still meeting other constraints, such as MPE (see Tang et al., col. 22, lines 45-60).
Regarding claim 11, the same citations and reasoning as corresponding method claim 4 are applied.
Regarding claim 18, the same citations and reasoning as corresponding method claim 4 are applied.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badic et al. in view of Tang et al. as applied to claims 4, 11, and 18 above, respectively, and further in view of Azizi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0025799 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Badic et al. as previously modified by Tang et al. discloses the method of claim 4. Badic et al. does not disclose,
…wherein determining whether there is the preference for UL communication is based on at least one of: an active application, a recent history of UL and DL usage, or a user-indicated preference
Tang et al. also does not disclose,
…wherein determining whether there is the preference for UL communication is based on at least one of: an active application, a recent history of UL and DL usage, or a user-indicated preference
Azizi et al. discloses,
…wherein determining whether there is the preference for UL communication is based on at least one of: an active application, a recent history of UL and DL usage, or a user-indicated preference (para. 0034, “In one exemplary embodiment, the user preference information comprises media-content-type information; media-content-source information; media-content-destination information, such as, user account and credential information; user content uplink and downlink preference information, and user uplink- and downlink-network-preference information.”).
Azizi et al. is analogous to the claimed invention because it discloses methods for improving base station and user equipment connections. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the wireless communication beamsweeping system of Badic et al. with the user preferences of Azizi et al. because the user preferences of Azizi et al. result in faster initiation of user-server connections since the type of connection is known (see Azizi, para. 0019). Furthermore, Badic et al. discloses methods of communicating UE preferences to a base station (see Badic et al., para. 0237), so incorporating the stored user preferences of Azizi et al. in that communication would be an obvious extension of the methodology disclosed by Badic et al.
Regarding claim 12, the same citations and rationale as corresponding method claim 5 are applied.
Regarding claim 19, the same citations and rationale as corresponding method claim 5 are applied.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhou et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0391913 A1) discloses beam management reports that enable selections of optimal beam combinations and antenna panels.
Park et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0253966 A1) discloses systems, methods, and apparatuses for wireless communications using power configuration parameters received from UE.
Kushnir et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0290011 A1) discloses systems and methods for using radar to detect objects impeding wireless communication
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Anna K Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30-4:30 Eastern, Friday, 10:00-2:00 Eastern.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Anna K. Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648