NON-FINAL REJECTION
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 .
This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed with request for continued examination on February 18, 2026. The instant 18/340,800 application was filed with 30 claims, claims 1, 20, and 30 being independent. In the amendment, claims 1, 5, 9, 19, 20, 24, 25, and 30 are amended and claim 6 is canceled. Thus claims 1-5 and 7-30 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 25 states “to further cause the one or more processors to determine the second transmit power based at least in part the on one or more properties associated with the communication link.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 9, 16, 17, 18, 20, and 30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 3, 4, 5, 19, and 30 of copending Application No. 18/340,285, respectively, in view of U.S. Pat. PGPUB 2010/0009632A1 to Ibrahim et al. (“Ibrahim”). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Looking at the reference independent claims 1, 19, and 30, the only difference between them and corresponding instant claims 1, 20, and 30 is that the instant claims cite the characteristic used in determining the transmit power is a receive power and determining the transmit power includes determining whether the power budget would cause RF saturation at a receiver of another device.
To that end, Ibrahim discloses an analogous invention, namely power control in an RF system including a transmitter and a receiver in another device. Ibrahim at FIGS 1, 2, and 4 and ¶54. Further, the transmitter power is determined based on receiver power, specifically whether it would cause saturation at the receiver. Id. and at ¶¶ 13-14, 16, 25, and 54, noting that the transmitted power level minus the path loss should not be greater than MIL. Id. MIL is defined in the instant disclosure as representing saturation at the receiver. Disclosure at ¶¶82-83 (“and Psat is representative of a power threshold indicative of RF saturation, such as the MIL.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to modify the reference claim to make this determination as taught by Ibrahim. This is because Ibrahim discloses avoiding a receiver power above MIL which the disclosure defines as saturation. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized such a modification as merely combining prior art elements according to known methods, in combination each element performing the function that it does separately, providing 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).
Instant claims 9, 16, 17, 18 correspond further to reference claims 9, 3, 4, 5, respectively.
Claims 1 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 28 of copending Application No. 18/340,780, respectively, in view of Ibrahim. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Looking at the reference independent claims 1 and 28, the only difference between them and corresponding instant claims 1 and 20 is that the instant claims cite the characteristic used in determining the transmit power is a receive power and determining the transmit power includes determining whether the power budget would cause RF saturation at a receiver of another device.
To that end, Ibrahim discloses an analogous invention, namely power control in an RF system including a transmitter and a receiver in another device. Ibrahim at FIGS 1, 2, and 4 and ¶54. Further, the transmitter power is determined based on receiver power, specifically whether it would cause saturation at the receiver. Id. and at ¶¶ 13-14, 16, 25, and 54, noting that the transmitted power level minus the path loss should not be greater than MIL. Id. MIL is defined in the instant disclosure as representing saturation at the receiver. Disclosure at ¶¶82-83 (“and Psat is representative of a power threshold indicative of RF saturation, such as the MIL.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to modify the reference claim to make this determination as taught by Ibrahim. This is because Ibrahim discloses avoiding a receiver power above MIL which the disclosure defines as saturation. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized such a modification as merely combining prior art elements according to known methods, in combination each element performing the function that it does separately, providing 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-5, 7-12, and 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over U.S. Pat. PGPUB 2010/0009632A1 to Ibrahim et al. (“Ibrahim”) in view of U.S. PGPUB 2023/0180151 A1 to Nadakaduti et al. (“Nadakaduti”)
As to claim 1:
A method of wireless communication by a wireless device, comprising:
Ibrahim discloses a method of wireless communication by a wireless device. Ibrahim at FIGS 1, 2, and 4, noting element 106.
obtaining a transmit power […] value […];
Ibrahim discloses obtaining a maximum transmit power level (“transmit power value”). Ibrahim at FIG 4 step 408 and at ¶54 (“the PC 106 may compute a maximum transmit power level, max(TX_power_level(PC)) for signals transmitted by the PC 106 to the mobile telephone 114”).
determining a first transmit power based at least in part on the transmit power […] value and a receive power associated with a communication link, wherein determining the first transmit power includes determining, whether the transmit power […] value would cause radio frequency (RF) saturation at a receiver of another device based at least in part on the transmit power […] value, the receiver power, and one or more properties associated with the communication link, the first transmit power being distinct from the transmit power […] value; and
Ibrahim discloses determining a first transmit power based on the transmit power value and a receive power associated with a communication link. Ibrahim at FIG 4 step 408. Determining the transmit power includes determining whether the transmit power value above would cause RF saturation at a receiver of another device based on the transmit power value, the receiver power, and a property associated with the communication link. Id. at ¶¶13-14, 16, 25, and 54, noting that the transmitted power level minus the path loss should not be greater than MIL. Id. MIL is defined in the instant disclosure as representing saturation at the receiver. Disclosure at ¶¶82-83 (“and Psat is representative of a power threshold indicative of RF saturation, such as the MIL.”).
transmitting a signal at the first transmit power […].
Ibrahim discloses transmitting a signal at the determined transmit power. Ibrahim at claim 1.
Ibrahim does not disclose that the maximum power is related to a power budget or that it is over a time interval.
Nadakaduti discloses an analogous invention to Ibrahim, namely power control in a wireless device, including steps of obtaining a transmit power budget, in a wireless communication device, associated with a time interval. Nadakaduti at FIGS 2 and 5 and ¶¶110, 113, 118-120, noting the determination of a budget for transmit power. Nadakaduti discloses the device determining transmit power based on the budget as well as receive power. Nadakaduti at ¶¶70, 80, 82, 93, noting the use of RSRP in the decision. Nadakaduti discloses transmitting the signal according to the determined transmit power. Nadakaduti at Abstract and at ¶91.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a transmit power budget in the maximum transmit power of Ibrahim. This is because Nadakaduti states that such helps comply with RF exposure limits. Nadakaduti at ¶3-5 and 31-32. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized such a modification as merely combining prior art elements according to known methods, in combination each element performing the function that it does separately, providing 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 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein the receive power is associated with the receiver of the other device.
Ibrahim discloses the receive power is associated with the receiver of the other device as noted above. Further, Nadakaduti discloses RSRP associated with the receive power (Nadakaduti at ¶93).
Further as to claim 3:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the first transmit power comprises determining the first transmit power to avoid the RF saturation at the receiver of the other device.
Ibrahim discloses determining the first transmit power so that it is not larger than the MIL as noted above, avoiding saturation of the receiver in accordance with how the disclosure defines it.
Further as to claim 4:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the first transmit power comprises:
selecting a second transmit power as the first transmit power in response to the receive power satisfying a first criterion; or
selecting a third transmit power as the first transmit power in response to the receive power satisfying a second criterion different than the first criterion.
Nadakaduti discloses converting the first budget and thus transmit power to a second budget and thus second transmit power based on a criterion, as well as a third transmit power using another criterion. Nadakaduti at Abstract and ¶5-7, 78, 102.
Further as to claim 5:
The method of claim 1, wherein:
the first transmit power is determined based at least in part on the transmit power budget value; and
the method further comprises determining the receive power based at least in part on the first transmit power.
Nadakaduti further discloses determining the transmit power based on a further received receive power. Nadakaduti at ¶¶70, 80, 82, 93, noting the use of RSRP in the decision.
Further as to claim 7:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first transmit power is determined as a sum of at least a maximum input level and a path loss associated with the communication link.
Ibrahim discloses that the transmit power is determined based on the path loss plus the MIL. Ibrahim at ¶¶13-14 and 25.
Further as to claim 8:
The method of claim 7, wherein the sum is the sum of the maximum input level, the path loss, and a buffer value.
Nadakaduti further discloses a buffer value in calculating a transmit power. Nadakaduti at ¶¶71-74.
Further as to claim 9:
The method of claim 1, wherein the transmit power budget value comprises a maximum allowed transmit power based on a radio frequency (RF) exposure limit.
As noted above as to claim 1, Ibrahim discloses the transmit power value comprises a maximum allowed transmit power. Nadakaduti discloses determining the transmit power based on a maximum from an RF exposure limit. Nadakaduti discloses that the maximum transmit power is determined based on an exposure limit. Nadakaduti at ¶¶102, 114 and 124.
Further as to claim 10:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more properties comprise:
a path loss associated with the communication link;
a signal strength associated with the communication link;
a maximum input level associated with the communication link; or
any combination thereof.
Ibrahim discloses that the property may be path loss and MIL as noted above. Nadakaduti discloses properties include at least path loss, RF exposure limit max power, and RSSI. Nadakaduti at ¶¶93 and 102.
Further as to claim 11:
The method of claim 10, wherein:
the path loss corresponds to the communication link between the wireless device and the other device;
the signal strength is associated with a wireless signal received at the wireless device and transmitted from the other device; and
the maximum input level is associated with the other device.
Ibrahim discloses that the path loss corresponds to the link between the devices. Ibrahim at ¶14 (“the path_loss(AB) represents a measure of attenuation of signals transmitted by device_A along a propagation path to device_B. The value of the path_loss(AB) may be a function of the distance of the propagation path from device_A to device_B.”) Ibrahim discloses the MIL is associated with the other device. Id. at ¶15. Nadakaduti discloses that the path loss corresponds to the link and the RSSI corresponds to a received signal at the wireless device. Nadakaduti at ¶¶93 and 102.
Further as to claim 12:
The method of claim 10, further comprising determining the path loss based at least in part on the signal strength and a fourth transmit power associated with the other device.
Ibrahim discloses that path loss may be determined based on signal strength and a transmit power associated with the other device. Ibrahim at ¶27 (“the PC 106 may determine a path_loss(PC_MT) value by measuring a BT received signal strength indication (RSSI) value for signals received by the PC 106 that were transmitted by the mobile telephone 114 via the BT BR/EDR connection 116 during the association phase. The PC 106 may be operable to compute a BT RSSI value based on preamble information transmitted by the mobile telephone 114 and received by the PC 106 via the received signals. In this instance, the PC 106 may infer a transmitted power level for signals transmitted by the mobile telephone 114 and then estimate the path_loss(PC_MT) value based on the BT RSSI value.”)
Further as to claim 16:
The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the signal comprises transmitting the signal via one or more frequency bands in a shared spectrum.
Ibrahim discloses transmitting the signal via a frequency band in a shared spectrum. Ibrahim at ¶4.
Further as to claim 17:
The method of claim 16, wherein the frequency bands include a 2.4 GHz frequency band, a 5 GHz frequency band, a 6 GHz frequency band, or any combination thereof.
Ibrahim discloses 2.4GHz. Ibrahim at ¶4.
Further as to claim 18:
The method of claim 1, wherein the communication link is associated with wireless local area network (WLAN) communications or wireless wide area network (WWAN) communications.
Ibrahim discloses the communication link is associated with a WLAN. Ibrahim at ¶13.
Further as to claim 19:
The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the transmit power budget value comprises obtaining the transmit power budget value from a controller that controls RF exposure associated with a plurality of radio access technologies including a radio access technology associated with the communication link.
Nadakaduti discloses determining the power budget and power via a controller which controls RF exposure associated with a plurality of radio access technologies. Nadakaduti at FIG 2 elements 280 and 281 and at ¶¶44-46 and 132.
As to claim 20:
An apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: memory configured to store instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the one or more processors to:
Ibrahim discloses an apparatus for wireless communication including a processor coupled to a memory to execute instructions therein, to perform the following method. Ibrahim at FIG 2 elements 206 and 208 and at ¶¶37 and 42-45.
obtain a transmit power […] value […],
Ibrahim discloses obtaining a maximum transmit power level (“transmit power value”). Ibrahim at FIG 4 step 408 and at ¶54 (“the PC 106 may compute a maximum transmit power level, max(TX_power_level(PC)) for signals transmitted by the PC 106 to the mobile telephone 114”).
determine a first transmit power based at least in part on the transmit power […] value and a receive power associated with a communication link, wherein, to determine the first transmit power, the one or more processors are configured to determine whether the transmit power […] value would cause radio frequency (RF) saturation at a receiver of another device based at least in part on the transmit power […] value, the receiver power, and one or more properties associated with the communication link, the first transmit power being distinct from the transmit power […] value, and
Ibrahim discloses determining a first transmit power based on the transmit power value and a receive power associated with a communication link. Ibrahim at FIG 4 step 408. Determining the transmit power includes determining whether the transmit power value above would cause RF saturation at a receiver of another device based on the transmit power value, the receiver power, and a property associated with the communication link. Id. at ¶¶13-14, 16, 25, and 54, noting that the transmitted power level minus the path loss should not be greater than MIL. Id. MIL is defined in the instant disclosure as representing saturation at the receiver. Disclosure at ¶¶82-83 (“and Psat is representative of a power threshold indicative of RF saturation, such as the MIL.”).
control transmission of a signal at the first transmit power […].
Ibrahim discloses transmitting a signal at the determined transmit power. Ibrahim at claim 1.
Ibrahim does not disclose that the maximum power is related to a power budget or that it is over a time interval.
Nadakaduti discloses an analogous invention to Ibrahim, namely power control in a wireless device, including steps of obtaining a transmit power budget, in a wireless communication device, associated with a time interval. Nadakaduti at FIGS 2 and 5 and ¶¶110, 113, 118-120, noting the determination of a budget for transmit power. Nadakaduti discloses the device determining transmit power based on the budget as well as receive power. Nadakaduti at ¶¶70, 80, 82, 93, noting the use of RSRP in the decision. Nadakaduti discloses transmitting the signal according to the determined transmit power. Nadakaduti at Abstract and at ¶91.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a transmit power budget in the maximum transmit power of Ibrahim. This is because Nadakaduti states that such helps comply with RF exposure limits. Nadakaduti at ¶3-5 and 31-32. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized such a modification as merely combining prior art elements according to known methods, in combination each element performing the function that it does separately, providing 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 21:
The apparatus of claim 20, further comprising a transmitter configured to transmit the signal at the first transmit power, wherein the receive power is associated with the receiver of the other device.
Ibrahim discloses a transmitter 204 for transmitting the signal at the determined power. Ibrahim at ¶¶40-41. Ibrahim further discloses the receive power is associated with the receiver of the other device as noted above. Further, Nadakaduti discloses RSRP associated with the receive power (Nadakaduti at ¶93).
Further as to claim 22:
The apparatus of claim 20, wherein to determine the first transmit power, the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to further cause the one or more processors to determine the first transmit power to avoid radio frequency (RF) saturation at the receiver of the other device.
Ibrahim discloses determining the first transmit power so that it is not larger than the MIL as noted above, avoiding saturation of the receiver in accordance with how the disclosure defines it.
Further as to claim 23:
The apparatus of claim 20, wherein to determine the first transmit power, the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to further cause the one or more processors to:
select a second transmit power as the first transmit power in response to the receive power satisfying a first criterion; or
select a third transmit power as the first transmit power in response to the receive power satisfying a second criterion different than the first criterion.
Nadakaduti discloses converting the first budget and thus transmit power to a second budget and thus second transmit power based on a criterion, as well as a third transmit power using another criterion. Nadakaduti at Abstract and ¶5-7, 78, 102.
Further as to claim 24:
The apparatus of claim 23, wherein to determine the first transmit power, the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to further cause the one or more processors to:
determine the third transmit power based at least in part on the transmit power budget value; and
determine the receive power based at least in part on the third transmit power.
Ibrahim and Nadakaduti disclose determining the various transmit powers based on the power budget value and determining receive power thereby as noted above as to claims 20 and 23. Nadakaduti further discloses determining the transmit power based on a further received receive power. Nadakaduti at ¶¶70, 80, 82, 93, noting the use of RSRP in the decision.
Further as to claim 25:
The apparatus of claim 23, wherein to determine the first transmit power, the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to further cause the one or more processors to determine the second transmit power based at least in part the on one or more properties associated with the communication link.
Ibrahim discloses that the property may be path loss and MIL as noted above. Nadakaduti discloses properties include at least path loss, RF exposure limit max power, and RSSI. Nadakaduti at ¶¶93 and 102.
Further as to claim 26:
The apparatus of claim 25, wherein to determine the second transmit power, the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to further cause the one or more processors to determine the second transmit power as a sum of at least a maximum input level and a path loss associated with the communication link.
Ibrahim discloses that the transmit power is determined based on the path loss plus the MIL. Ibrahim at ¶¶13-14 and 25.
Further as to claim 27:
The apparatus of claim 26, wherein the sum is the sum of the maximum input level, the path loss, and a buffer value.
Nadakaduti further discloses a buffer value in calculating a transmit power. Nadakaduti at ¶¶71-74.
Further as to claim 28:
The apparatus of claim 25, wherein the one or more properties comprise:
a path loss associated with the communication link;
a signal strength associated with the communication link;
a maximum input level associated with the communication link; or
any combination thereof.
Ibrahim discloses that the property may be path loss and MIL as noted above. Nadakaduti discloses properties include at least path loss, RF exposure limit max power, and RSSI. Nadakaduti at ¶¶93 and 102.
Further as to claim 29:
The apparatus of claim 28, wherein:
the path loss corresponds to the communication link between the apparatus and the other device;
the signal strength is associated with a wireless signal received at the apparatus and transmitted from the other device; and
the maximum input level is associated with the other device.
Ibrahim discloses that the path loss corresponds to the link between the devices. Ibrahim at ¶14 (“the path_loss(AB) represents a measure of attenuation of signals transmitted by device_A along a propagation path to device_B. The value of the path_loss(AB) may be a function of the distance of the propagation path from device_A to device_B.”) Ibrahim discloses the MIL is associated with the other device. Id. at ¶15. Nadakaduti discloses that the path loss corresponds to the link and the RSSI corresponds to a received signal at the wireless device. Nadakaduti at ¶¶93 and 102.
As to claim 30:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon for:
Ibrahim discloses an apparatus for wireless communication including a processor coupled to a memory to execute instructions therein, to perform the following method. Ibrahim at FIG 2 elements 206 and 208 and at ¶¶37 and 42-45.
obtaining a transmit power […] value […];
Ibrahim discloses obtaining a maximum transmit power level (“transmit power value”). Ibrahim at FIG 4 step 408 and at ¶54 (“the PC 106 may compute a maximum transmit power level, max(TX_power_level(PC)) for signals transmitted by the PC 106 to the mobile telephone 114”).
determining a first transmit power based at least in part on the transmit power […] value and a receive power associated with a communication link, wherein determining the first transmit power includes determining whether the transmit power […] value would cause radio frequency (RF) saturation at a receiver of another device based at least in part on the transmit power […] value, the receiver power, and one or more properties associated with the communication link, the first transmit power being distinct from the transmit power […] value; and
Ibrahim discloses determining a first transmit power based on the transmit power value and a receive power associated with a communication link. Ibrahim at FIG 4 step 408. Determining the transmit power includes determining whether the transmit power value above would cause RF saturation at a receiver of another device based on the transmit power value, the receiver power, and a property associated with the communication link. Id. at ¶¶13-14, 16, 25, and 54, noting that the transmitted power level minus the path loss should not be greater than MIL. Id. MIL is defined in the instant disclosure as representing saturation at the receiver. Disclosure at ¶¶82-83 (“and Psat is representative of a power threshold indicative of RF saturation, such as the MIL.”).
transmitting a signal at the first transmit power […].
Ibrahim discloses transmitting a signal at the determined transmit power. Ibrahim at claim 1.
Ibrahim does not disclose that the maximum power is related to a power budget or that it is over a time interval.
Nadakaduti discloses an analogous invention to Ibrahim, namely power control in a wireless device, including steps of obtaining a transmit power budget, in a wireless communication device, associated with a time interval. Nadakaduti at FIGS 2 and 5 and ¶¶110, 113, 118-120, noting the determination of a budget for transmit power. Nadakaduti discloses the device determining transmit power based on the budget as well as receive power. Nadakaduti at ¶¶70, 80, 82, 93, noting the use of RSRP in the decision. Nadakaduti discloses transmitting the signal according to the determined transmit power. Nadakaduti at Abstract and at ¶91.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a transmit power budget in the maximum transmit power of Ibrahim. This is because Nadakaduti states that such helps comply with RF exposure limits. Nadakaduti at ¶3-5 and 31-32. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized such a modification as merely combining prior art elements according to known methods, in combination each element performing the function that it does separately, providing 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).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibrahim in view of Nadakaduti as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of U.S. Pat. PGPUB 2025/0119849 A1 to Salim et al (“Salim”).
As to claim 13:
The method of claim 12, wherein determining the path loss comprises determining the path loss based at least in part on a moving average of the signal strength.
While disclosing claim 12 above, Ibrahim in view of Nadakaduti fails to disclose the path loss being based on a moving average.
Salim discloses an analogous art, namely transmit power control in a wireless system. Salim at FIGS 1A and 1B and at ¶¶22-27 and 91-96. Specifically, Salim states that RSRP measurements at a receiver may be taken into account by the transmitter to determine transmit power by way of calculating pathloss. Id. at ¶93. Salim discloses that the path loss determination is based on a transmit power and a received power. Id. Lastly, Salim discloses averaging the received power indicator over time. Salim at ¶93.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to modify Ibrahim in view of Nadakaduti use the averaging system of Salim. This is because while Ibrahim and Nadakaduti disclose calculating pathloss, Salim states that the receiver is unable to determine the pathloss by way of the RSRP and needs to feed it to the transmitter using averaging. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized such a modification as merely combining prior art elements according to known methods, in combination each element performing the function that it does separately, providing 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).
Notably, while Salim discloses RSRP, Nadakaduti discloses measuring and using either RSRP or RSSI. Nadakaduti at ¶93. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using RSSI instead of RSRP, given both being disclosed as usable, as implicit disclosure in Nadakaduti (see MPEP § 2144.01), as well as merely a simple substitution of one known element for another according to known methods, to achieve 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 14:
The method of claim 12, wherein determining the path loss comprises determining the path loss based at least in part on a weighted average of the signal strength.
While disclosing claim 12 above, Ibrahim in view of Nadakaduti fails to disclose the path loss being based on a weighted average.
Salim discloses an analogous art, namely transmit power control in a wireless system. Salim at FIGS 1A and 1B and at ¶¶22-27 and 91-96. Specifically, Salim states that RSRP measurements at a receiver may be taken into account by the transmitter to determine transmit power by way of calculating pathloss. Id. at ¶93. Salim discloses that the path loss determination is based on a transmit power and a received power. Id. Lastly, Salim discloses averaging the received power indicator over time. Salim at ¶93. Lastly, Salim discloses averaging the received power over time and mentions weights in averaging. Salim at ¶¶93 and 126.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to modify Ibrahim in view of Nadakaduti use the averaging system of Salim. This is because while Ibrahim and Nadakaduti disclose calculating pathloss, Salim states that the receiver is unable to determine the pathloss by way of the RSRP and needs to feed it to the transmitter using averaging. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized such a modification as merely combining prior art elements according to known methods, in combination each element performing the function that it does separately, providing 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).
Notably, while Salim discloses RSRP, Nadakaduti discloses measuring and using either RSRP or RSSI. Nadakaduti at ¶93. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using RSSI instead of RSRP, given both being disclosed as usable, as implicit disclosure in Nadakaduti (see MPEP § 2144.01), as well as merely a simple substitution of one known element for another according to known methods, to achieve 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 15:
The method of claim 12, wherein determining the path loss comprises selecting the path loss among a plurality of path losses associated with a plurality of connections.
While disclosing claim 12 above, Ibrahim in view of Nadakaduti fails to disclose the path loss regarding a plurality of connections.
Salim discloses an analogous art, namely transmit power control in a wireless system. Salim at FIGS 1A and 1B and at ¶¶22-27 and 91-96. Specifically, Salim states that RSRP measurements at a receiver may be taken into account by the transmitter to determine transmit power by way of calculating pathloss. Id. at ¶93. Salim discloses that the path loss determination is based on a transmit power and a received power. Id. Lastly, Salim discloses averaging the received power indicator over time. Salim at ¶93. Lastly, Salim discloses selecting a path loss from multiple path losses in accordance with different connections. Salim at ¶¶93-95.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to modify Ibrahim in view of Nadakaduti use the multiple connection system of Salim. This is because while Ibrahim and Nadakaduti disclose calculating pathloss, Salim states that the receiver is unable to determine the pathloss by way of the RSRP and needs to feed it to the transmitter using multiple connections. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized such a modification as merely combining prior art elements according to known methods, in combination each element performing the function that it does separately, providing 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).
Notably, while Salim discloses RSRP, Nadakaduti discloses measuring and using either RSRP or RSSI. Nadakaduti at ¶93. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using RSSI instead of RSRP, given both being disclosed as usable, as implicit disclosure in Nadakaduti (see MPEP § 2144.01), as well as merely a simple substitution of one known element for another according to known methods, to achieve 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant provides arguments in the amendment at 8-12 (“Remarks”).
As to the previous rejection under obvious-type double patenting (Remarks at 8-9), note the new ground of rejection above. The Examiner will not be holding a double patenting rejection in abeyance. MPEP § 804 I. B. 1.
As to rejections under §103 (Remarks at 9-12), applicant’s arguments are considered moot in view of the new ground of rejection above responsive to the amendment.
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.
Signed,
/CHARLES R CRAVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights