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 .
EXAMINER’S COMMENT
Drawings
The modifications to the drawings were received on 06/26/2026. These modifications are accepted by the Examiner.
In view of the amendment filed on 06/26/2026, the Examiner withdraws Drawing objections of the previous Office action.
Specification
The modifications to the specification were received on 06/26/2026. These modifications are accepted by the Examiner.
In view of the amendment filed on 06/26/2026, the Examiner withdraws Specification objections of the previous Office action.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Curtiss:
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment/Req. Reconsideration-After Non-Final Reject, filed 06/26/2026, with respect to claims 1, 23, 29 and 30 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1, 23, 29 and 30 have been withdrawn.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Nadakuduti:
Regarding claim 1:
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant contends:
“With regard to claim 1, Applicant respectfully submits the Office has failed to adequately show that the combination of the alleged AAPA and Nadakuduti teaches or suggests at least "determining an allowable transmit power level for a time interval independent of a time-averaged RF exposure limit in response to detecting the transmission is associated with the authorized exception," as recited in claim 1. The Office Action relies on Nadakuduti for allegedly disclosing the aforementioned feature in claim 1. See Office Action, p. 16-17 (asserting "Nadakuduti discloses determining an allowable transmit power level for a time interval independent of a time-averaged RF exposure limit in response to detecting the transmission is associated with the authorized exception"). The Office Action identifies portions of Nadakuduti which disclose, in part, "[i]n certain cases, an RF exposure regulation requires that a time-averaged RF exposure over a time window not exceed an RF exposure limit. This allows the wireless device 100 to briefly exceed the RF exposure limit as long as the time-averaged RF exposure does not exceed the limit." See Office Action, p. 17 citing Nadakuduti, 1 [0100]. Respectfully, even assuming, arguendo, that the Office Action's reliance on the foregoing disclosure were correct (which Applicant does not concede), the Office Action nevertheless fails to explain how the cited disclosure teaches or suggests "determining an allowable transmit power level for a time interval independent of a time-averaged RF exposure limit," as recited in claim 1. In particular, the Office Action does not identify what aspect of the cited disclosure allegedly corresponds to the claimed "allowable transmit power level." Nor does the Office Action explain how any such determination is "independent of a time-averaged RF exposure limit," as recited in claim 1. To the contrary, the cited disclosure explains that "a time-averaged RF exposure over a time window not exceed an RF exposure limit" and that a wireless device may briefly exceed the RF exposure limit "as long as the time-averaged RF exposure does not exceed the limit." However, the Office Action does not articulate how the cited disclosure corresponds to the claimed determination of an allowable transmit power level, nor how it demonstrates that the claimed determination is independent of a time-averaged RF exposure limit. Based on the foregoing, it follows that the Office Action has failed to adequately show that the combination of the alleged AAPA and Nadakuduti teaches or suggests at least "determining an allowable transmit power level for a time interval independent of a time-averaged RF exposure limit in response to detecting the transmission is associated with the authorized exception," as recited in claim 1. For at least these reasons, Applicant submits claim 1 and its dependents are allowable and respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection with respect to these claims”
The Examiner disagrees, and asserts that, as indicated in the previous Office action Nadakuduti discloses determining an allowable transmit power level for a time interval independent of a time-averaged RF exposure limit in response to detecting the transmission is associated with the authorized exception “In the example in FIG. 16, the PD limit is greater than one. This is possible because the outer loop determines RF exposure compliance over a time-averaging window 705 that includes multiple time slots 715(1)-715(q)”
PNG
media_image1.png
348
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
396
614
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nadakuduti discloses that “If the peak value is greater than one, then the processor 110 may determine that the first and second transmission power levels do not comply with RF exposure limits.” (paragraph [0075]). “In the example in FIG. 16, the PD limit is greater than one” (paragraph [0195]). See figures 16 and 17.
Nadakuduti discloses “As discussed above, the processor 110 may set the portion of the PD allocation that is reserved for future sub-time slots by setting the reserve ratio. In one example, the processor 110 may set the reserve ratio based on channel conditions between the wireless device 100 (e.g., mobile wireless device) and another wireless device (e.g., base station) receiving transmissions from the wireless device 100. For example, if channel conditions are good (e.g., low interference and/or short range between the wireless devices), then the processor 110 may set the reserve ratio higher to more evenly spread out transmission power across the time-averaging window 1605. In this case, spreading out the transmission power may result in higher throughput. Setting the reserve ratio higher more evenly spreads out the transmission power by reserving a larger portion of the PD allocation for future sub-time slots.
“If channel conditions are bad (e.g., high interference and/or long range between the wireless devices), then the processor 110 may set the reserve ratio lower. Setting the reserve ratio lower reduces the portion of the PD allocation reserved for future sub-time slots. This relaxes the constraint on the transmission power for a current sub-time slot imposed by the portion of the PD allocation reserved for future sub-time slots, allowing the transmitter 130 to transmit at a higher power for the current sub-time slot. In this case, transmitting at higher power (e.g., in a short burst) may be necessary to ensure that data transmitted from the wireless device 100 is successfully received by the other wireless device.”
“In another example, the processor 110 may set the reserve ratio based on data traffic patterns. For example, if the wireless device 100 is scheduled to transmit data toward the end of the time-averaging window 1605, then the processor 110 may set the reserve ratio higher to reserve a sufficient amount of the PD allocation for the scheduled data transmission”
“In certain aspects, the processor 110 may determine the maximum allowable power level for a sub-time slot based on the allowed PD for the sub-time slot using a table. In this regard, FIG. 18 shows an example of a table 1810 for converting an allowed PD for a sub-time slot into a maximum allowable power level. The table 1810 may be stored in the memory 115”
“In this example, the table 1810 includes an index for n different transmit scenarios for the transmitter 130. The n transmit scenarios may correspond to different beams, different user positions relative to the wireless device 100, etc. For each transmit scenario in the table 1810, the table 1810 includes a corresponding transmission power level at a reference PD (labeled “Tx1” to “Txn”). The transmission power levels for the different transmit scenarios at the reference PD may be predetermined by performing simulations and/or measurements on the wireless device 110, and prestored in the table 1810.”
See also claim 2,” Determining the allowable transmit power level comprises determining the allowable transmit power level to be equal to a power level associated with a transmit power limit corresponding to the time-averaged RF exposure limit.”
Independently, clearly Nadakuduti discloses claim 2. Claim 2 is depending directly from claim 1. If Nadakuduti discloses claim 2, a narrower claim, it has to disclose also the broader claim, claim 1.
For these reasons and the reasons of the precious Office action the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Regarding claim 5:
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant contends:
“Further regarding claim 5, Applicant respectfully submits the Office Action has failed to adequately show that the combination of the alleged AAPA and Nadakuduti teaches or suggests at least "allowing non-compliance with the time-averaged RF exposure limit in the time interval based on past RF exposure and the allowable transmit power level for the time interval," as recited in claim 5. The Office Action relies on Nadakuduti for allegedly disclosing the aforementioned feature in claim 5. See Office Action, p. 21. The Office Action identifies portions of Nadakuduti which disclose, in part, "[i]n certain cases, an RF exposure regulation requires that a time-averaged RF exposure over a time window not exceed an RF exposure limit. This allows the wireless device 100 to briefly exceed the RF exposure limit as long as the time-averaged RF exposure does not exceed the limit." See Office Action, p. 21 citing Nadakuduti, 1 [0100]. Respectfully, the Office Action does not explain how the cited disclosure teaches or suggests "allowing non-compliance with the time-averaged RF exposure limit in the time interval," as recited in claim 5. Rather, the cited disclosure appears to explain that a wireless device may briefly exceed an RF exposure limit provided that the time-averaged RF exposure does not exceed the limit. However, the Office Action does not articulate how a disclosure that continues to require compliance with a time-averaged RF exposure limit corresponds to the claimed feature of "allowing non-compliance with the time-averaged RF exposure limit in the time interval." Based on the foregoing, it follows that the Office Action has failed to adequately show that the combination of the alleged AAPA and Nadakuduti teaches or suggests at least "allowing non- compliance with the time-averaged RF exposure limit in the time interval based on past RF exposure and the allowable transmit power level for the time interval," as recited in claim 5. For at least these additional reasons, Applicant submits claim 5 is allowable and respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection with respect to claim 5. ”
The Examiner disagrees, and asserts that, as indicated in the previous Office action Nadakuduti discloses “In the example in FIG. 16, the PD limit is greater than one. This is possible because the outer loop determines RF exposure compliance over a time-averaging window 705 that includes multiple time slots 715(1)-715(q)”
Nadakuduti discloses that “If the peak value is greater than one, then the processor 110 may determine that the first and second transmission power levels do not comply with RF exposure limits.” (paragraph [0075]).
For these reasons and the reasons of the precious Office action the rejection of claim 5 is maintained.
Regarding claim 6:
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant contends:
“Further regarding claim 6, Applicant respectfully submits the Office Action has failed to adequately show that the combination of the alleged AAPA and Nadakuduti teaches or suggests at least "refraining from performing a time-averaged RF exposure evaluation for at least a duration of the transmission," as recited in claim 6. The Office Action relies on Nadakuduti for allegedly disclosing the aforementioned feature in claim 6. See Office Action, p. 21. The Office Action identifies portions of Nadakuduti which disclose, in part, "[i]n certain cases, an RF exposure regulation requires that a time-averaged RF exposure over a time window not exceed an RF exposure limit. This allows the wireless device 100 to briefly exceed the RF exposure limit as long as the time-averaged RF exposure does not exceed the limit." See Office Action, p. 21 citing Nadakuduti, 1 [0100]. However, the Office Action nevertheless fails to explain how the cited disclosure teaches or suggests "refraining from performing a time-averaged RF exposure evaluation for at least a duration of the transmission," as recited in claim 6. The cited disclosure discusses operation subject to a time-averaged RF exposure evaluation and a time-averaged RF exposure limit. However, the Office Action does not identify where Nadakuduti refrains from performing a time-averaged RF exposure evaluation, nor does the Office Action articulate how the cited disclosure corresponds to refraining from performing such an evaluation for at least a duration of the transmission. Based on the foregoing, it follows that the Office Action has failed to adequately show that the combination of the alleged AAPA and Nadakuduti teaches or suggests at least "refraining from performing a time-averaged RF exposure evaluation for at least a duration of the transmission," as recited in claim 6. For at least these additional reasons, Applicant submits claim 6 is allowable and respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection with respect to claim 6.”
The Examiner disagrees, and asserts that, as indicated in the previous Office action Nadakuduti discloses “In certain cases, an RF exposure regulation requires that a time-averaged RF exposure over a time window not exceed an RF exposure limit. This allows the wireless device 100 to briefly exceed the RF exposure limit as long as the time-averaged RF exposure does not exceed the limit.” This clearly means that in other cases the RF exposure regulation requires that a time-averaged RF exposure over a time window could exceed an RF exposure limit.
Nadakuduti discloses “In the example in FIG. 16, the PD limit is greater than one. This is possible because the outer loop determines RF exposure compliance over a time-averaging window 705 that includes multiple time slots 715(1)-715(q)”
Nadakuduti discloses that “If the peak value is greater than one, then the processor 110 may determine that the first and second transmission power levels do not comply with RF exposure limits.” (paragraph [0075]).
For these reasons and the reasons of the precious Office action the rejection of claim 6 is maintained.
Regarding claim 23:
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant contends:
“Regarding claim 23, for similar reasons noted above with regard to claim 1, Applicant respectfully submits the Office has failed to adequately show that the combination of the alleged. AAPA and Nadakuduti teaches or suggests an apparatus configured to "determine an allowable transmit power level for a time interval independent of a time-averaged RF exposure limit in response to detecting the transmission is associated with the authorized exception," as recited in claim 23. For at least these reasons, Applicant submits claim 23 and its dependents are allowable and respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection with respect to these claims”
The Examiner disagrees, and asserts that, because the rejection of claim 1 is maintained, for the same reasons, the rejection of claim 23 is also maintained.
For these reasons and the reasons of the precious Office action the rejection of claim 23 is maintained.
Regarding claim 29:
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant contends:
“Regarding claim 29, for similar reasons noted above with regard to claim 1, Applicant respectfully submits the Office has failed to adequately show that the combination of the alleged AAPA and Nadakuduti teaches or suggests "means for determining an allowable transmit power level for a time interval independent of a time-averaged RF exposure limit in response to detecting the transmission is associated with the authorized exception," as recited in claim 29. For at least these reasons, Applicant submits claim 29 is allowable and respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection with respect to this claim.”
The Examiner disagrees, and asserts that, because the rejection of claim 1 is maintained, for the same reasons, the rejection of claim 29 is also maintained.
For these reasons and the reasons of the precious Office action the rejection of claim 29 is maintained.
Regarding claim 30:
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant contends:
“Regarding claim 30, for similar reasons noted above with regard to claim 1, Applicant respectfully submits the Office has failed to adequately show that the combination of the alleged AAPA and Nadakuduti teaches or suggests "determining an allowable transmit power level for a time interval independent of a time-averaged RF exposure limit in response to detecting the transmission is associated with the authorized exception," as recited in claim 30. For at least these reasons, Applicant submits claim 30 is allowable and respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection with respect to this claim.”
The Examiner disagrees, and asserts that, because the rejection of claim 1 is maintained, for the same reasons, the rejection of claim 30 is also maintained.
For these reasons and the reasons of the precious Office action the rejection of claim 30 is maintained.
Regarding claims 19-22:
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant contends:
“Claims 19-22 each depend from independent claim 1, which Applicant submits is allowable for at least the reasons discussed above. Further, the Office Action relies on Cai as disclosing various elements of dependent claims 19-22; however, the Office Action has failed to show that Cai overcomes the deficiencies of the Office Action noted above with respect to independent claim 1. Therefore, claims 19-22 are believed to be allowable at least due to their dependence from an allowable base claim and for their additional distinguishing features recited therein. See M.P.E.P. § 2143.03; In re Fine, 837 F.2d at 1076. Withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner disagrees, and asserts that, because the rejection of claim 1 is maintained, for the same reasons, the rejection of claim 19-22 is also maintained.
For these reasons and the reasons of the precious Office action the rejection of claims 19-22 is maintained.
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 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 1-18 and 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) (page 1 paragraph [0003] of the present application) in view of Nadakuduti (US 20200015171 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 23, 29 and 30, AAPA discloses radio frequency (RF) exposure compliance and determining an allowable transmit power level for a time interval and transmitting a signal in the time interval based on the allowable transmit power level (AAPA page 1 paragraph [0003] “Modern wireless devices (such as cellular telephones) are generally mandated to meet radio frequency (RF) exposure limits set by certain governments and international standards and regulations. To ensure compliance with the standards, such devices typically undergo an extensive certification process prior to being shipped to market. To ensure that a wireless device complies with an RF exposure limit, techniques have been developed to enable the wireless device to assess RF exposure from the wireless device and adjust the transmission power of the wireless device accordingly to comply with the RF exposure limit”). AAPA doesn’t specifically disclose detecting a transmission is associated with an authorized exception to radio frequency (RF) exposure compliance; determining an allowable transmit power level for a time interval independent of a time-averaged RF exposure limit in response to detecting the transmission is associated with the authorized exception. Nadakuduti discloses detecting a transmission is associated with an authorized exception to radio frequency (RF) exposure compliance (title, abstract, paragraphs [0008]-[0011], [0100]-[156], [0194]-[0230] figures 5-11, 16-18 “RF exposure regulation requires that a time-averaged RF exposure over a time window not exceed an RF exposure limit. This allows the wireless device 100 to briefly exceed the RF exposure limit as long as the time-averaged RF exposure does not exceed the limit” … “the inner loop receives a PD limit (labeled “PDlim”) from the outer loop for the time-averaging window 1605. The PD limit may correspond to the peak PD value in the normalized PD distribution PDnorm_lim determined for the future time slot 715(q) discussed above. In the example in FIG. 16, the PD limit is greater than one. This is possible because the outer loop determines RF exposure compliance over a time-averaging window 705 that includes multiple time slots 715(1)-715(q)”); determining an allowable transmit power level for a time interval independent of a time-averaged RF exposure limit in response to detecting the transmission is associated with the authorized exception (title, abstract, paragraphs [0008]-[0011], [0100]-[156], [0194]-[0230] figures 5-11, 16-18 “RF exposure regulation requires that a time-averaged RF exposure over a time window not exceed an RF exposure limit. This allows the wireless device 100 to briefly exceed the RF exposure limit as long as the time-averaged RF exposure does not exceed the limit” … “the inner loop receives a PD limit (labeled “PDlim”) from the outer loop for the time-averaging window 1605. The PD limit may correspond to the peak PD value in the normalized PD distribution PDnorm_lim determined for the future time slot 715(q) discussed above. In the example in FIG. 16, the PD limit is greater than one. This is possible because the outer loop determines RF exposure compliance over a time-averaging window 705 that includes multiple time slots 715(1)-715(q)” … “In certain cases, an RF exposure regulation requires that a time-averaged RF exposure over a time window not exceed an RF exposure limit. This allows the wireless device 100 to briefly exceed the RF exposure limit as long as the time-averaged RF exposure does not exceed the limit.”)
PNG
media_image3.png
346
743
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
395
676
media_image4.png
Greyscale
AAPA and Nadakuduti are analogous art because they are from the same field of communications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in the technique disclosed by AAPA the period of time disclosed by Nadakuduti. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have to limit a user's exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation according to RF exposure limits set by domestic and international regulators (Nadakuduti paragraph [0003]). See also KSR. In the KSR case, the Court stated that in certain circumstances what is obvious to try is also obvious, such as where "there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem, and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." Regarding hindsight, the Court found that "[r]igid preventive rules that deny fact finders recourse to common sense . . . are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it." The Court stated that "familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes," analogizing an obvious invention to the fitting together of pieces to a puzzle. The Court in this regard further stated that the person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, and not "an automaton."
Regarding claims 2 and 24, AAPA and Nadakuduti disclose claims 1 and 23, Nadakuduti also discloses determining the allowable transmit power level to be equal to a power level associated with a transmit power limit corresponding to the time-averaged RF exposure limit (title, abstract, paragraphs [0008]-[0011], [0100]-[156], [0194]-[0230] figures 5-11, 16-18 “Determine a maximum allowable time-average power level for a future time slot, determine a maximum allowable transmission duty cycle for the future time slot based on the determined maximum allowable time-average power level and a maximum allowable power level, and set a transmission duty cycle limit for the transmitter in the future time slot based on the maximum allowable transmission duty cycle.”).
Regarding claims 3 and 25, AAPA and Nadakuduti disclose claims 1 and 23, Nadakuduti also discloses determining the allowable transmit power level to be a maximum instantaneous transmit power that the wireless device is capable of outputting (title, abstract, paragraphs [0008]-[0011], [0100]-[156], [0194]-[0230] figures 5-11, 16-18 “Determine a maximum allowable time-average power level for a future time slot, determine a maximum allowable transmission duty cycle for the future time slot based on the determined maximum allowable time-average power level and a maximum allowable power level, and set a transmission duty cycle limit for the transmitter in the future time slot based on the maximum allowable transmission duty cycle.”).
Regarding claims 4 and 26, AAPA and Nadakuduti disclose claims 1 and 23, Nadakuduti also discloses selecting the allowable transmit power level between a power level associated with a transmit power limit corresponding to the time-averaged RF exposure limit and a maximum instantaneous transmit power that the wireless device is capable of outputting (title, abstract, paragraphs [0008]-[0011], [0100]-[156], [0194]-[0230] figures 5-11, 16-18 “Determine a maximum allowable time-average power level for a future time slot, determine a maximum allowable transmission duty cycle for the future time slot based on the determined maximum allowable time-average power level and a maximum allowable power level, and set a transmission duty cycle limit for the transmitter in the future time slot based on the maximum allowable transmission duty cycle.”).
Regarding claims 5 and 27, AAPA and Nadakuduti disclose claims 1 and 23, Nadakuduti also discloses allowing non-compliance with the time-averaged RF exposure limit in the time interval based on past RF exposure and the allowable transmit power level for the time interval (title, abstract, paragraphs [0008]-[0011], [0100]-[156], [0194]-[0230] figures 5-11, 16-18 “Determine a maximum allowable time-average power level for a future time slot, determine a maximum allowable peak power level for the future time slot based on the determined maximum allowable time-average power level and a maximum allowable duty cycle, and set a peak power limit for the transmitter in the future time slot based on the maximum allowable peak power level.”).
Regarding claim 6, AAPA and Nadakuduti disclose claim 1, Nadakuduti also discloses refraining from performing a time-averaged RF exposure evaluation for at least a duration of the transmission (title, abstract, paragraphs [0008]-[0011], [0100]-[156], [0194]-[0230] figures 5-11, 16-18 “Determine a maximum allowable time-average power level for a future time slot, determine a maximum allowable peak power level for the future time slot based on the determined maximum allowable time-average power level and a maximum allowable duty cycle, and set a peak power limit for the transmitter in the future time slot based on the maximum allowable peak power level” ... “In certain cases, an RF exposure regulation requires that a time-averaged RF exposure over a time window not exceed an RF exposure limit. This allows the wireless device 100 to briefly exceed the RF exposure limit as long as the time-averaged RF exposure does not exceed the limit.”).
Regarding claim 7, AAPA and Nadakuduti disclose claim 1, Nadakuduti also discloses adjusting an RF exposure report or a transmit power report to be in compliance with the time-averaged RF exposure limit (title, abstract, paragraphs [0008]-[0011], [0100]-[156], [0194]-[0230] figures 5-11, 16-18 “In certain cases, an RF exposure regulation requires that a time-averaged RF exposure over a time window not exceed an RF exposure limit. This allows the wireless device 100 to briefly exceed the RF exposure limit as long as the time-averaged RF exposure does not exceed the limit.”).
Regarding claim 8, AAPA and Nadakuduti disclose claim 7, Nadakuduti also discloses determining an initial transmit power level based on the adjusted RF exposure report or the adjusted transmit power report in compliance with the time-averaged RF exposure limit and replacing the initial transmit power level with the allowable transmit power level (title, abstract, paragraphs [0008]-[0011], [0100]-[156], [0194]-[0230] figures 5-11, 16-18 “Determine a maximum allowable time-average power level for a future time slot, determine a maximum allowable peak power level for the future time slot based on the determined maximum allowable time-average power level and a maximum allowable duty cycle, and set a peak power limit for the transmitter in the future time slot based on the maximum allowable peak power level” ... “In certain cases, an RF exposure regulation requires that a time-averaged RF exposure over a time window not exceed an RF exposure limit. This allows the wireless device 100 to briefly exceed the RF exposure limit as long as the time-averaged RF exposure does not exceed the limit”)
Regarding claim 9, AAPA and Nadakuduti disclose claim 7, Nadakuduti also discloses selecting a smallest value among a plurality of values as the RF exposure report or transmit power report (title, abstract, paragraphs [0008]-[0011], [0100]-[156], [0194]-[0230] figures 5-11, 16-18 “For example, if the allowed PD is 50% smaller than the reference PD, then the processor 110 may reduce the transmission power level from the table 1810 by 50% to obtain the maximum allowable power level for the sub-time slot.”).
Regarding claim 10, AAPA and Nadakuduti disclose claim 9, Nadakuduti also discloses a current value of the RF exposure report or transmit power report and a substitute value for the RF exposure report or transmit power report (title, abstract, paragraphs [0008]-[0011], [0100]-[156], [0194]-[0230] figures 5-11, 16-18 “Determine a maximum allowable time-average power level for a future time slot, determine a maximum allowable peak power level for the future time slot based on the determined maximum allowable time-average power level and a maximum allowable duty cycle, and set a peak power limit for the transmitter in the future time slot based on the maximum allowable peak power level”)
Regarding claim 11, AAPA and Nadakuduti disclose claim 10, Nadakuduti also discloses determining the substitute value as a value corresponding to a reserve power associated with the time-averaged RF exposure limit (title, abstract, paragraphs [0008]-[0011], [0100]-[156], [0194]-[0230] figures 5-11, 16-18 “Determine a maximum allowable time-average power level for a future time slot, determine a maximum allowable peak power level for the future time slot based on the determined maximum allowable time-average power level and a maximum allowable duty cycle, and set a peak power limit for the transmitter in the future time slot based on the maximum allowable peak power level” ... “In certain cases, an RF exposure regulation requires that a time-averaged RF exposure over a time window not exceed an RF exposure limit. This allows the wireless device 100 to briefly exceed the RF exposure limit as long as the time-averaged RF exposure does not exceed the limit”).
Regarding claim 12, AAPA and Nadakuduti disclose claim 7, Nadakuduti also discloses setting the RF exposure report or transmit power report to a particular value (title, abstract, paragraphs [0008]-[0011], [0100]-[156], [0194]-[0230] figures 5-11, 16-18 “Determine a maximum allowable time-average power level for a future time slot, determine a maximum allowable peak power level for the future time slot based on the determined maximum allowable time-average power level and a maximum allowable duty cycle, and set a peak power limit for the transmitter in the future time slot based on the maximum allowable peak power level” ... “In certain cases, an RF exposure regulation requires that a time-averaged RF exposure over a time window not exceed an RF exposure limit. This allows the wireless device 100 to briefly exceed the RF exposure limit as long as the time-averaged RF exposure does not exceed the limit”).
Regarding claim 13, AAPA and Nadakuduti disclose claim 12, Nadakuduti also discloses a first value indicative of no past RF exposure or a second value corresponding to a reserve power level (title, abstract, paragraphs [0008]-[0011], [0100]-[156], [0194]-[0230] figures 5-11, 16-18 “Determine a maximum allowable time-average power level for a future time slot, determine a maximum allowable peak power level for the future time slot based on the determined maximum allowable time-average power level and a maximum allowable duty cycle, and set a peak power limit for the transmitter in the future time slot based on the maximum allowable peak power level”).
Regarding claim 14, AAPA and Nadakuduti disclose claim 7, Nadakuduti also discloses the RF exposure report is indicative of the RF exposure produced by the wireless device in a running time window associated with the time-averaged RF exposure limit (title, abstract, paragraphs [0008]-[0011], [0100]-[156], [0194]-[0230] figures 5-11, 16-18 “Determine a maximum allowable time-average power level for a future time slot, determine a maximum allowable peak power level for the future time slot based on the determined maximum allowable time-average power level and a maximum allowable duty cycle, and set a peak power limit for the transmitter in the future time slot based on the maximum allowable peak power level” ... “In certain cases, an RF exposure regulation requires that a time-averaged RF exposure over a time window not exceed an RF exposure limit. This allows the wireless device 100 to briefly exceed the RF exposure limit as long as the time-averaged RF exposure does not exceed the limit”)
Regarding claims 15 and 28, AAPA and Nadakuduti disclose claims 1 and 23, Nadakuduti also discloses determining the allowable transmit power level is in compliance with a first RF exposure limit associated with an occupational or controlled environment (title, abstract, paragraphs [0008]-[0011], [0100]-[156], [0194]-[0230] figures 5-11, 16-18 “Determine a maximum allowable time-average power level for a future time slot, determine a maximum allowable peak power level for the future time slot based on the determined maximum allowable time-average power level and a maximum allowable duty cycle, and set a peak power limit for the transmitter in the future time slot based on the maximum allowable peak power level” ... “In certain cases, an RF exposure regulation requires that a time-averaged RF exposure over a time window not exceed an RF exposure limit. This allows the wireless device 100 to briefly exceed the RF exposure limit as long as the time-averaged RF exposure does not exceed the limit”).
Regarding claim 16, AAPA and Nadakuduti disclose claim 15, Nadakuduti also discloses permitting the allowable transmit power level to be in non-compliance with a second RF exposure limit associated with a general public environment (title, abstract, paragraphs [0008]-[0011], [0100]-[156], [0194]-[0230] figures 5-11, 16-18 “Determine a maximum allowable time-average power level for a future time slot, determine a maximum allowable peak power level for the future time slot based on the determined maximum allowable time-average power level and a maximum allowable duty cycle, and set a peak power limit for the transmitter in the future time slot based on the maximum allowable peak power level” ... “In certain cases, an RF exposure regulation requires that a time-averaged RF exposure over a time window not exceed an RF exposure limit. This allows the wireless device 100 to briefly exceed the RF exposure limit as long as the time-averaged RF exposure does not exceed the limit”)
Regarding claim 17, AAPA and Nadakuduti disclose claim 15, Nadakuduti also discloses determining the allowable transmit power level to be equal to a power level associated with a first transmit power limit corresponding to the time-averaged RF exposure limit and the first transmit power limit is higher than a second transmit power limit corresponding to the time-averaged RF exposure limit (title, abstract, paragraphs [0008]-[0011], [0100]-[156], [0194]-[0230] figures 5-11, 16-18 “Determine a maximum allowable time-average power level for a future time slot, determine a maximum allowable peak power level for the future time slot based on the determined maximum allowable time-average power level and a maximum allowable duty cycle, and set a peak power limit for the transmitter in the future time slot based on the maximum allowable peak power level” ... “In certain cases, an RF exposure regulation requires that a time-averaged RF exposure over a time window not exceed an RF exposure limit. This allows the wireless device 100 to briefly exceed the RF exposure limit as long as the time-averaged RF exposure does not exceed the limit”).
Regarding claim 18, AAPA and Nadakuduti disclose claim 15, Nadakuduti also discloses determining the allowable transmit power level to be equal to a first power level associated with a transmit power limit corresponding to the time-averaged RF exposure limit and the first power level is higher than a second power level associated with a transmit power limit corresponding to a second RF exposure limit associated with a general public environment (title, abstract, paragraphs [0008]-[0011], [0100]-[156], [0194]-[0230] figures 5-11, 16-18 “Determine a maximum allowable time-average power level for a future time slot, determine a maximum allowable peak power level for the future time slot based on the determined maximum allowable time-average power level and a maximum allowable duty cycle, and set a peak power limit for the transmitter in the future time slot based on the maximum allowable peak power level” ... “In certain cases, an RF exposure regulation requires that a time-averaged RF exposure over a time window not exceed an RF exposure limit. This allows the wireless device 100 to briefly exceed the RF exposure limit as long as the time-averaged RF exposure does not exceed the limit”).
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA and Nadakuduti as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cai (US 20200374882 A1).
Regarding claim 19, AAPA and Nadakuduti disclose claim 1, AAPA and Nadakuduti don’t specifically disclose detecting the transmission is associated with an emergency. Cai discloses detecting the transmission is associated with an emergency (paragraph [0095] “A UE may also be referred to as a mobile station, a terminal, an access terminal, a subscriber unit, a station, a Customer Premises Equipment (CPE), a cellular phone, a smart phone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wireless modem, a wireless communication device, a handheld device, a laptop computer, a cordless phone, a wireless local loop (WLL) station, a tablet computer, a camera, a gaming device, a netbook, a smartbook, an ultrabook, an appliance, a medical device or medical equipment, a biometric sensor/device, a wearable device such as a smart watch, smart clothing, smart glasses, a smart wrist band, smart jewelry (e.g., a smart ring, a smart bracelet, etc.)”). AAPA, Nadakuduti and Cai are analogous art because they are from the same field of communications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in the technique disclosed by AAPA and Nadakuduti the emergency services disclosed by Cai. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have to consider possible services for UE (Cai paragraph [0095]).
Regarding claim 20, AAPA, Nadakuduti and Cai disclose claim 19, Cai also discloses detecting the transmission is associated with the emergency based at least in part on at least one of: a recipient of the transmission, a destination phone number associated with the transmission, or a priority service associated with the transmission (paragraph [0095] “A UE may also be referred to as a mobile station, a terminal, an access terminal, a subscriber unit, a station, a Customer Premises Equipment (CPE), a cellular phone, a smart phone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wireless modem, a wireless communication device, a handheld device, a laptop computer, a cordless phone, a wireless local loop (WLL) station, a tablet computer, a camera, a gaming device, a netbook, a smartbook, an ultrabook, an appliance, a medical device or medical equipment, a biometric sensor/device, a wearable device such as a smart watch, smart clothing, smart glasses, a smart wrist band, smart jewelry (e.g., a smart ring, a smart bracelet, etc.)”
Regarding claim 21, AAPA, Nadakuduti and Cai disclose claim 20, Cai also discloses an emergency contact number, an emergency hotline, a police department, a fire department, a coast guard, a border patrol, an emergency medical care service, or an ambulance service (paragraph [0095] “A UE may also be referred to as a mobile station, a terminal, an access terminal, a subscriber unit, a station, a Customer Premises Equipment (CPE), a cellular phone, a smart phone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wireless modem, a wireless communication device, a handheld device, a laptop computer, a cordless phone, a wireless local loop (WLL) station, a tablet computer, a camera, a gaming device, a netbook, a smartbook, an ultrabook, an appliance, a medical device or medical equipment, a biometric sensor/device, a wearable device such as a smart watch, smart clothing, smart glasses, a smart wrist band, smart jewelry (e.g., a smart ring, a smart bracelet, etc.)”).
Regarding claim 22, AAPA, Nadakuduti and Cai disclose claim 20, Cai also discloses a wireless priority service (paragraph [0095] “A UE may also be referred to as a mobile station, a terminal, an access terminal, a subscriber unit, a station, a Customer Premises Equipment (CPE), a cellular phone, a smart phone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wireless modem, a wireless communication device, a handheld device, a laptop computer, a cordless phone, a wireless local loop (WLL) station, a tablet computer, a camera, a gaming device, a netbook, a smartbook, an ultrabook, an appliance, a medical device or medical equipment, a biometric sensor/device, a wearable device such as a smart watch, smart clothing, smart glasses, a smart wrist band, smart jewelry (e.g., a smart ring, a smart bracelet, etc.)”).
Conclusion
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 JUAN A TORRES whose telephone number is (571) 272-3119. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kenneth N Vanderpuye can be reached at (571) 272-3078. 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.
/JUAN A TORRES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights