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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/28/2024 and 10/28/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“200” (see figure 2);
“610” (see figure 6);
“924” (see figure 9)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because uses phrases which can be implied, such as, “Are described,” (see line 2). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-30 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 Curtiss (US 20220086770 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. Curtiss discloses detecting a transmission is associated with an authorized exception to radio frequency (RF) exposure compliance (title, abstract, paragraphs [0026], [0036], [0064]-[0095] claims 1, 13 and figures 1, 4-5 “exception-robust time-averaged radio frequency (RF) exposure compliance continuity. A method that may be performed by a user equipment (UE) generally includes transmitting a first signal at a first transmission power based on time-averaged RF exposure measurements over a time window and storing RF exposure information associated with the time window. The method may also include detecting that an exception event associated with the UE occurred and transmitting a second signal at a second transmission power based at least in part on the stored RF exposure information in response to the detection of the event.” … “In certain aspects, a PD distribution may be normalized with respect to a PD limit by dividing each PD value in the PD distribution by the PD limit. In this case, a normalized PD value exceeds the PD limit when the normalized PD value is greater than one, and is below the PD limit when the normalized PD value is less than one. In these aspects, each of the PD distributions stored in the memory may be normalized with respect to a PD limit.”); 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 [0026], [0036], [0064]-[0095] claims 1, 13 and figures 1, 4-5 “exception-robust time-averaged radio frequency (RF) exposure compliance continuity. A method that may be performed by a user equipment (UE) generally includes transmitting a first signal at a first transmission power based on time-averaged RF exposure measurements over a time window and storing RF exposure information associated with the time window. The method may also include detecting that an exception event associated with the UE occurred and transmitting a second signal at a second transmission power based at least in part on the stored RF exposure information in response to the detection of the event.” … “In certain aspects, a PD distribution may be normalized with respect to a PD limit by dividing each PD value in the PD distribution by the PD limit. In this case, a normalized PD value exceeds the PD limit when the normalized PD value is greater than one, and is below the PD limit when the normalized PD value is less than one. In these aspects, each of the PD distributions stored in the memory may be normalized with respect to a PD limit.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
563
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
AAPA and Curtiss 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 Curtiss. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to adjust the transmission power of the wireless device accordingly to comply with the RF exposure limit (Curtiss 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 Curtiss disclose claims 1 and 23, Curtiss 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 [0026], [0036], [0064]-[0095] claims 1, 13 and figures 1, 4-5 “. A method that may be performed by a user equipment (UE) generally includes transmitting a first signal at a first transmission power based on time-averaged RF exposure measurements over a time window and storing RF exposure information associated with the time window”).
Regarding claims 3 and 25, AAPA and Curtiss disclose claims 1 and 23, Curtiss 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 [0026], [0036], [0064]-[0095] claims 1, 13 and figures 1, 4-5 “In this case, the processor 280 may determine a first maximum allowable power level for the first technology and a second maximum allowable power level for the second technology for transmissions in a time slot that comply with RF exposure limits.”).
Regarding claims 4 and 26, AAPA and Curtiss disclose claims 1 and 23, Curtiss 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 [0026], [0036], [0064]-[0095] claims 1, 13 and figures 1, 4-5 “The “maximum allowable power level” may be used to set a power level limit on a transmission at a transmitter such that the power level of the transmission is not allowed to exceed the “maximum allowable power level” to ensure RF exposure compliance”).
Regarding claims 5 and 27, AAPA and Curtiss disclose claims 1 and 23, Curtiss 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 [0026], [0036], [0064]-[0095] claims 1, 13 and figures 1, 4-5 “Time-averaged RF exposure compliance (e.g., SAR or MPE/PD) may provide desirable device performance, as well as ensure user safety at the device. In certain cases (such as normal runtime operations), the device (e.g., a UE) has an active system that ensures RF exposure compliance at all times, based upon varying time windows of power history”).
Regarding claim 6, AAPA and Curtiss disclose claim 1, Curtiss also discloses refraining from performing a time-averaged RF exposure evaluation for at least a duration of the transmission (title, abstract, paragraphs [0026], [0036], [0064]-[0095] claims 1, 13 and figures 1, 4-5 “In certain aspects, a PD distribution may be normalized with respect to a PD limit by dividing each PD value in the PD distribution by the PD limit. In this case, a normalized PD value exceeds the PD limit when the normalized PD value is greater than one, and is below the PD limit when the normalized PD value is less than one. In these aspects, each of the PD distributions stored in the memory may be normalized with respect to a PD limit.”).
Regarding claim 7, AAPA and Curtiss disclose claim 1, Curtiss 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 [0026], [0036], [0064]-[0095] claims 1, 13 and figures 1, 4-5 “Certain aspects of the present disclosure provide techniques for exception-robust time-averaged radio frequency (RF) exposure compliance continuity”).
Regarding claim 8, AAPA and Curtiss disclose claim 7, Curtiss 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 [0026], [0036], [0064]-[0095] claims 1, 13 and figures 1, 4-5 “Certain aspects of the present disclosure provide techniques for exception-robust time-averaged radio frequency (RF) exposure compliance continuity. A method that may be performed by a user equipment (UE) generally includes transmitting a first signal at a first transmission power based on time-averaged RF exposure measurements over a time window and storing RF exposure information associated with the time window”).
Regarding claim 9, AAPA and Curtiss disclose claim 7, Curtiss also discloses selecting a smallest value among a plurality of values as the RF exposure report or transmit power report (title, abstract, paragraphs [0026], [0036], [0064]-[0095] claims 1, 13 and figures 1, 4-5 “a SAR distribution may be normalized with respect to a SAR limit by dividing each SAR value in the SAR distribution by the SAR limit. In this case, a normalized SAR value exceeds the SAR limit when the normalized SAR value is greater than one, and is below the SAR limit when the normalized SAR value is less than one”).
Regarding claim 10, AAPA and Curtiss disclose claim 9, Curtiss 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 [0026], [0036], [0064]-[0095] claims 1, 13 and figures 1, 4-5 “In certain aspects, a PD distribution may be normalized with respect to a PD limit by dividing each PD value in the PD distribution by the PD limit. In this case, a normalized PD value exceeds the PD limit when the normalized PD value is greater than one, and is below the PD limit when the normalized PD value is less than one. In these aspects, each of the PD distributions stored in the memory may be normalized with respect to a PD limit.”).
Regarding claim 11, AAPA and Curtiss disclose claim 10, Curtiss 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 [0026], [0036], [0064]-[0095] claims 1, 13 and figures 1, 4-5 “Certain aspects of the present disclosure provide techniques for exception-robust time-averaged radio frequency (RF) exposure compliance continuity. A method that may be performed by a user equipment (UE) generally includes transmitting a first signal at a first transmission power based on time-averaged RF exposure measurements over a time window and storing RF exposure information associated with the time window”).
Regarding claim 12, AAPA and Curtiss disclose claim 7, Curtiss also discloses setting the RF exposure report or transmit power report to a particular value (title, abstract, paragraphs [0026], [0036], [0064]-[0095] claims 1, 13 and figures 1, 4-5 “In certain aspects, a PD distribution may be normalized with respect to a PD limit by dividing each PD value in the PD distribution by the PD limit. In this case, a normalized PD value exceeds the PD limit when the normalized PD value is greater than one, and is below the PD limit when the normalized PD value is less than one. In these aspects, each of the PD distributions stored in the memory may be normalized with respect to a PD limit.”).
Regarding claim 13, AAPA and Curtiss disclose claim 12, Curtiss also discloses a first value indicative of no past RF exposure or a second value corresponding to a reserve power level (title, abstract, paragraphs [0026], [0036], [0064]-[0095] claims 1, 13 and figures 1, 4-5 “The processor (e.g., 240, 280, 336) may determine the first and second maximum allowable power levels as follows. The processor may determine a normalized SAR distribution for the first technology at a first transmission power level, determine a normalized PD distribution for the second technology at a second transmission power level, and combine the normalized SAR distribution and the normalized PD distribution to generate a combined normalized RF exposure distribution”).
Regarding claim 14, AAPA and Curtiss disclose claim 7, Curtiss 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 [0026], [0036], [0064]-[0095] claims 1, 13 and figures 1, 4-5 “Certain aspects of the present disclosure provide techniques for exception-robust time-averaged radio frequency (RF) exposure compliance continuity. A method that may be performed by a user equipment (UE) generally includes transmitting a first signal at a first transmission power based on time-averaged RF exposure measurements over a time window and storing RF exposure information associated with the time window”).
Regarding claims 15 and 28, AAPA and Curtiss disclose claims 1 and 23, Curtiss 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 [0026], [0036], [0064]-[0095] claims 1, 13 and figures 1, 4-5 “Certain aspects of the present disclosure provide techniques for exception-robust time-averaged radio frequency (RF) exposure compliance continuity. A method that may be performed by a user equipment (UE) generally includes transmitting a first signal at a first transmission power based on time-averaged RF exposure measurements over a time window and storing RF exposure information associated with the time window”).
Regarding claim 16, AAPA and Curtiss disclose claim 15, Curtiss 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 [0026], [0036], [0064]-[0095] claims 1, 13 and figures 1, 4-5 “In certain aspects, a PD distribution may be normalized with respect to a PD limit by dividing each PD value in the PD distribution by the PD limit. In this case, a normalized PD value exceeds the PD limit when the normalized PD value is greater than one, and is below the PD limit when the normalized PD value is less than one. In these aspects, each of the PD distributions stored in the memory may be normalized with respect to a PD limit.”).
Regarding claim 17, AAPA and Curtiss disclose claim 15, Curtiss 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 [0026], [0036], [0064]-[0095] claims 1, 13 and figures 1, 4-5 “The processor (e.g., 240, 280, 336) may determine the first and second maximum allowable power levels as follows. The processor may determine a normalized SAR distribution for the first technology at a first transmission power level, determine a normalized PD distribution for the second technology at a second transmission power level, and combine the normalized SAR distribution and the normalized PD distribution to generate a combined normalized RF exposure distribution”).
Regarding claim 18, AAPA and Curtiss disclose claim 15, Curtiss 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 [0026], [0036], [0064]-[0095] claims 1, 13 and figures 1, 4-5 “The processor (e.g., 240, 280, 336) may determine the first and second maximum allowable power levels as follows. The processor may determine a normalized SAR distribution for the first technology at a first transmission power level, determine a normalized PD distribution for the second technology at a second transmission power level, and combine the normalized SAR distribution and the normalized PD distribution to generate a combined normalized RF exposure distribution”).
Regarding claim 19, AAPA and Curtiss disclose claim 1, Curtiss also discloses detecting the transmission is associated with an emergency (title, abstract, paragraphs [0026], [0036], [0064]-[0095] [0136] claims 1, 13 and figures 1, 4-5 “A UE may also be referred to and/or configured as a mobile station, a terminal, an access terminal, a subscriber unit, a station, a 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,”).
Regarding claim 20, AAPA and Curtiss disclose claim 19, Curtiss 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 ((title, abstract, paragraphs [0026], [0036], [0064]-[0095] [0136] claims 1, 13 and figures 1, 4-5 “A UE may also be referred to and/or configured as a mobile station, a terminal, an access terminal, a subscriber unit, a station, a 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,”).
Regarding claim 21, AAPA and Curtiss disclose claim 20, Curtiss 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 (title, abstract, paragraphs [0026], [0036], [0064]-[0095] [0136] claims 1, 13 and figures 1, 4-5 “A UE may also be referred to and/or configured as a mobile station, a terminal, an access terminal, a subscriber unit, a station, a 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,”).
Regarding claim 22, AAPA and Curtiss disclose claim 20, Curtiss also discloses a wireless priority service (title, abstract, paragraphs [0146] claims 1, 13 and figures 1, 4-5 “A UE may also be referred to and/or configured as a mobile station, a terminal, an access terminal, a subscriber unit, a station, a 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,”).
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_image2.png
346
743
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
395
676
media_image3.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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lu (US 20220159582 A1) discloses radio frequency (rf) exposure compliance.
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