Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the application filed received on June 8, 2026.
Claims 1-30 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claims 1, 11, 21, and 26, applicant argues that Carporal does not explicitly teach “wherein the first transmission power limit comprises a lowest of a first power class power limit, a first specific absorption rate (SAR) power limit, a first thermal mitigation power limit, or a first maximum transmit power associated with the first frequency band, and wherein the second transmission power limit comprises a lowest of a second power class power limit, a second SAR power limit, a second thermal mitigation power limit, or a second maximum transmit power associated with the second frequency band”. The examiner disagrees. Carporal teaches the power limits (P-MPR) of transmissions for the first and second cells are determined and reported (¶¶219 and ¶227). Carporal teaches the P-MPR limits are determined based on what is restricting the transmission power (i.e. the lowest) which can include SARS restrictions (see ¶134), but can also be a per carrier or per system power restriction (see ¶134). The power limits are then transmitted (see ¶135 and ¶139). So Carporal teaches that the first and second transmission power limits can be the lowest of multiple values including the SARS restriction as required by claims 1, 11, 21, and 26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites (bold added):
“wherein the first transmission power limit comprises a lowest of a first power class power limit, a first specific absorption rate (SAR) power limit, a first thermal mitigation power limit, or a first maximum transmit power associated with the first frequency band” and
“wherein the second transmission power limit comprises a lowest of a second power class power limit, a second SAR power limit, a second thermal mitigation power limit, or a second maximum transmit power associated with the second frequency band”
It is unclear from the claim scope how the combination of the “lowest” requirement work with the alternative conjunction “or” in these limitations. It is easy to understand that the lowest value can be determined if there are multiple values, however the BRI of claim 1 only requires just one of the listed power limits because they are alternatively claimed. However, it requires the lowest of a first value and a lowest of a second value, so its unclear how to interpret the lowest value when the BRI of the claim only includes one of those power limits. As result, claim 1 is indefinite.
Claims 11, 21, and 26 include the same claim language as claim 1 and are indefinite under the same rationale.
Claims 2-10, 12-20, 22-25, and 27-30 are dependent from claims 1, 11, 21, and 26 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 4 recites “determining the first transmission power limit based on at least one of: a specific absorption rate (SAR), a maximum transmission power setting, one or more thermal mitigation parameters, a maximum power reduction (MPR) backoff setting, or an additional MPR (AMPR) backoff setting associated with the first frequency band; and determining the second transmission power limit based on at least one of a SAR, a maximum transmission power setting, one or more thermal mitigation parameters, a maximum power reduction (MPR) backoff setting, or an additional MPR (AMPR) backoff setting associated with the second frequency band.” However claim 1 has been amended to recite the first and second transmission power limits comprise a lowest of several listed values. Claim 4’s definition of how the transmission power limits seems to expand or change the requirements of claim 1 as to the determination of the transmission power limits, it is unclear if claim 4 is adding additional requirements or changing the requirements presented in claim 1. Expanding the requirements of the first and second transmission power limits would create an issue of an improper dependent claim.
Claim 14 recites the same claim language as claim 4 and is rejected under the same rationale.
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 1-5, 11-15, 21-24, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corporal del Barrio et al (US 2024/0121687, hereinafter “Corporal”) in view of Wang et al (US 2021/032950, hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Corporal teaches a user equipment (UE), comprising:
at least one memory storing processor-readable code; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory, the at least one processor configured to execute the processor-readable code to cause the at least one processor to perform operations (¶¶339-347) including:
detecting a first trigger condition (¶218, wherein for an MPE event, like a user located within a certain distance is detected) transmission of at least a first indication of a first transmission power limit of the UE associated with a first network node and a second indication of a second transmission power limit of the UE associated with a second network node and supported by the UE (¶¶138-140, wherein there are multiple P-MPR values representing transmission power limits including different beams are sent with their SSBRI which indicates frequency and time; ¶¶219-220, wherein the P-MPR report can include power limit values in respect for the source (first network node) and target cell (second network node))
wherein the first transmission power limit comprises a lowest of a first power class power limit, a first specific absorption rate (SAR) power limit, a first thermal mitigation power limit, or a first maximum transmit power associated with the first frequency band, and wherein the second transmission power limit comprises a lowest of a second power class power limit, a second SAR power limit, a second thermal mitigation power limit, or a second maximum transmit power associated with the second frequency band (¶¶133-136, wherein the maximum power in light of SARs requirements is used to determine the transmission power limits for multiple resource indicators, wherein the P-MPR is also restricted based on a upper carrier or system level, as result the lowest value of the P-MPR is computed based upon the limits of the SAR requirements or a per carrier/system requirement, it applies to all cell connections because the P-MPR is calculated for both cells ¶¶219-220); and
transmitting, to the first network node, the first indication and the second indication in accordance with detection of the first trigger condition (¶¶138-140 and ¶¶219-220, wherein the UE transmits the MPE event data including multiple P-MPR numbers according to multiple beams, SSBRI values, and multiple cells, see also ¶229).
Corporal teaches that the P-MPRs can be associated with different beams (¶138), but doesn’t explicitly indicate wherein the first transmission power limit is associated with a first frequency band supported by the UE and the second transmission power limit is associated with a second frequency band supported by the UE.
Wang teaches a system for P-MPR reports which a single report can include P-MPR values for multiple carriers (¶132) and that the multiple carriers can include different frequency bands (¶73).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to use Wang’s suggestion of having performing multiple carrier P-MPR reporting, where the multiple carriers can have different frequency bands to improve Corporal’s teaching. The combination would result in Corporal’s system to allow the P-MPR reporting to include an additional carrier P-MPR values (not withstanding of the frequency band used by the carrier), the result would have having multiple frequency bands in the P-MPR messages if the carriers are operating on different carrier bands. The combination would allow Corporal to provide more information about the P-MPR values to help aid the hand-off decisions.
Regarding claims 21 and 26, Corporal teaches a first network node, comprising:
at least one memory storing processor-readable code; and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory, the at least one processor configured to execute the processor-readable code to cause the at least one processor to perform operations (¶¶339-347) including:
receiving, from a user equipment (UE), a first indication of a first transmission power limit of the UE and a second indication of a second transmission power limit of the UE (¶¶138-140, wherein there are multiple P-MPR values representing transmission power limits including different beams are sent with their SSBRI which indicates frequency and time); wherein the first transmission power limit comprises a lowest of a first power class power limit, a first specific absorption rate (SAR) power limit, a first thermal mitigation power limit, or a first maximum transmit power associated with the first frequency band, and wherein the second transmission power limit comprises a lowest of a second power class power limit, a second SAR power limit, a second thermal mitigation power limit, or a second maximum transmit power associated with the second frequency band (¶¶133-136, wherein the maximum power in light of SARs requirements is used to determine the transmission power limits for multiple resource indicators, wherein the P-MPR is also restricted based on a upper carrier or system level, as result the lowest value of the P-MPR is computed based upon the limits of the SAR requirements or a per carrier/system requirement, it applies to all cell connections because the P-MPR is calculated for both cells ¶¶219-220) and
determining whether to initiate a handover of the UE from the first network node to the second network node based on the received first indication and second indication (¶¶257-259, wherein source gNB can determine from the reported information whether to handover the UE to another gNB).
Corporal teaches that the P-MPRs can be associated with different beams (¶138), but doesn’t explicitly indicate wherein the first transmission power limit is associated with a first frequency band supported by the UE and the second transmission power limit is associated with a second frequency band supported by the UE.
Wang teaches a system for P-MPR reports which a single report can include P-MPR values for multiple carriers (¶132) and that the multiple carriers can include different frequency bands (¶73).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to use Wang’s suggestion of having performing multiple carrier P-MPR reporting, where the multiple carriers can have different frequency bands to improve Corporal’s teaching. The combination would result in Corporal’s system to allow the P-MPR reporting to include an additional carrier P-MPR values (not withstanding of the frequency band used by the carrier), the result would have having multiple frequency bands in the P-MPR messages if the carriers are operating on different carrier bands. The combination would allow Corporal to provide more information about the P-MPR values to help aid the hand-off decisions.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Corporal teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the processor-readable code to cause the at least one processor to perform operations including: receiving, from the first network node after transmitting the first indication and the second indication, an indication to perform a handover from the first network node to a second network node (¶259, wherein the UE can receive an indication to perform a handover based upon the reported MPE conditions).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Corporal teaches the UE of claim 2, wherein the second transmission power limit is greater than the first transmission power limit (¶¶219-223, wherein if the up degration happens at the source cell connection and target uplink is better, the system will prepare a handover for the UE, wherein the amount of degradation of the signal due to the MPE event, i.e. P-MPR for both cells is used to determine if the target cell is the better than the source cell, see also ¶210 and ¶216).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Corporal teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the processor-readable code to cause the at least one processor to perform operations including: determining the first transmission power limit based on at least one of: a specific absorption rate (SAR), a maximum transmission power setting, one or more thermal mitigation parameters, a maximum power reduction (MPR) backoff setting, or an additional MPR (AMPR) backoff setting associated with the first frequency band; and determining the second transmission power limit based on at least one of a SAR, a maximum transmission power setting, one or more thermal mitigation parameters, a maximum power reduction (MPR) backoff setting, or an additional MPR (AMPR) backoff setting associated with the second frequency band (¶¶137-140 and ¶133-134, wherein the maximum power in light of SARs requirements is used to determine the transmission power limits for multiple resource indicators).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Corporal teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein transmitting the first indication and the second indication comprises transmitting a measurement report including the first indication and the second indication (¶242, wherein the MPE report can be included in measurement reports).
Regarding claims 22 and 27, Corporal teaches the first network node of claim 21, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the processor-readable code to cause the at least one processor to perform operations including: transmitting, to the UE, an indication to perform a handover from the first network node to the second network node based on the determination of whether to initiate the handover of the UE from the first network node to the second network node (¶259, wherein the UE can receive an indication to perform a handover based upon the reported MPE conditions).
Regarding claims 23 and 28, Corporal teaches the first network node of claim 22, wherein the second transmission power limit is greater than the first transmission power limit (¶¶219-223, wherein if the up degration happens at the source cell connection and target uplink is better, the system will prepare a handover for the UE, wherein the amount of degradation of the signal due to the MPE event, i.e. P-MPR for both cells is used to determine if the target cell is the better than the source cell, see also ¶210 and ¶216).
Regarding claims 24 and 29, Corporal teaches the first network node of claim 21, wherein receiving the first indication and the second indication comprises receiving a measurement report including the first indication and the second indication (¶242, wherein the MPE report can be included in measurement reports).
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corporal (US 2024/0121687) in view of Chauvin et al. (US 2023/0016288, hereinafter “Chauvin”).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Corporal teaches the UE of claim 1.
Corporal does not explicitly indicate wherein detecting a first trigger condition for transmission of the first indication of the first transmission power limit of the UE and the second indication of the second indication of the second transmission power limit of the UE comprises: determining that a transmission power of the UE on the first frequency band has exceeded a transmission power threshold for a threshold period of time.
Chauvin teaches a SARS exposure measurement which monitors transmission power against a threshold and a threshold period of time to measure total exposure and once a UE exceeds the threshold it starts to implement MPE limits (¶67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to use Chauvin’s teaching of MPE limit triggers to improve Corporal’s system. The combination would allow the UE’s in Corporal to perform SARS and MPE exposure measurements using a combination of power transmission thresholding and time of transmission threshold to help calculate when a UE is approaching SARS or MPE limits then implementing the MPE limit process.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Corporal, as improved by Chauvin as described in the rejection to claim, teach the UE of claim 6, wherein the transmission power threshold is less than or equal to the first transmission power limit (Corporal, ¶134, wherein when a SARS exposure is determined, the UE will reduce power limits below SARS exposure limits and inform the gNB about the reduction in power limits).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corporal (US 2024/0121687) in view of Chauvin (US 2023/0016288) as applied to claims 6-7 and 16-17 above, and further in view of Raghavan et al. (US 11240766, hereinafter “Raghavan”).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Corporal, as improved by Chauvin, teaches claim 6.
The combination does not explicitly indicate wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the processor-readable code to cause the at least one processor to perform operations including: receiving, from the first network node, an indication of the transmission power threshold and an indication of the threshold period of time.
Raghavan teaches that the base stations can implement the MPE exposure creation for the UE and transmit the profile for MPE management to the UE, that includes thresholds for time and power limits (col. 18, ll. 34-45 and col. 19, ll. 4-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use Raghavan’s teaching of allowing the base station to help support the MPE/SARS exposure calculations and transmit a transmission plan to help the UE to manage exposure and implement MPE reporting and maximum power limits as implemented in Corporal.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corporal (US 2024/0121687) in view of Rahman et al (US 2022/0007299, hereinafter “Rahman”).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Corporal teaches the UE of claim 1.
Corporal does not explicitly indicate wherein the first frequency band is associated with a first antenna of the UE and the second frequency band is associated with a second antenna of the UE.
Rahman teaches a system of managing MPE events in a UE (¶174), wherein the reporting can be specific to each separate antenna panel, which function as separate antenna (¶¶180-181 and ¶186).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to incorporate Rahman’s teaching of having the MPE events tied to different antennas and report out the power limits of each antenna/panels as separate panels/beams and frequencies in Corporal. This combination would ensure the base station is getting additional information about the MPE impact to the transmissions and have allow the base station to make more informed decisions.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Corporal teaches the UE of claim 1.
Corporal does not explicitly indicate wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the processor-readable code to cause the at least one processor to perform operations including: detecting a second trigger condition for stopping transmission of at least the first indication of the first transmission power limit of the UE and the second indication of the second transmission power limit of the UE; and refraining from transmitting the first indication of the first transmission power limit of the UE and the second indication of the second transmission power limit of the UE after detecting the second trigger condition.
Rahman teaches a system of managing MPE events in a UE (¶174), wherein detecting a second trigger condition for stopping transmission of at least the first indication of the first transmission power limit of the UE and the second indication of the second transmission power limit of the UE; and refraining from transmitting the first indication of the first transmission power limit of the UE and the second indication of the second transmission power limit of the UE after detecting the second trigger condition (¶¶190-191 and ¶¶141-142, wherein Rahman teaches a condition for turning the reporting on and the detection of the condition (or lack of a condition) for no longer transmission the MPE reports).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the application to use Rahman’s suggestion of halting MPE reporting when the trigger for initiating the reporting is no longer triggered. This would allow the MPE reporting to end once the MPE event has ended and allow the UE to resume normal operations.
Claims 25 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corporal (US 2024/0121687) in view of Raghaven (US 11240766).
Regarding claims 25 and 30, Corporal teaches the first network node of claim 21.
However, Corporal does not explicitly indicate wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the processor-readable code to cause the at least one processor to perform operations including: transmitting, to the UE, an indication of a transmission power threshold associated with the first transmission power limit and an indication of a threshold period of time associated with the first transmission power limit.
Raghavan teaches that the base stations can implement the MPE exposure creation for the UE and transmit the profile for MPE management to the UE, that includes thresholds for time and power limits (col. 18, ll. 34-45 and col. 19, ll. 4-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use Raghavan’s teaching of allowing the base station to help support the MPE/SARS exposure calculations and transmit a transmission plan to help the UE to manage exposure and implement MPE reporting and maximum power limits as implemented in Corporal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN T BATES whose telephone number is (571)272-3980. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
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.
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights