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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts:
Mani fails to disclose or suggest at least "an equivalent isotropic radiated power (EIRP) threshold including one or more of an average EIRP over multiple subarray architecture parameters or a maximum EIRP for each of the multiple subarray architecture parameters," as in claim 1 (emphasis added).
The Examiner notes that Applicant appears to assert that Mani does not address “subarray architecture parameters” in association with an EIRP over multiple subarray architecture parameters or a maximum EIRP for each of the multiple subarray architecture parameters. However, per the claim language, no detail is provided regarding what the subarray architecture parameters comprise. Mani discloses (see for example Fig. 5 – 510) that signal parameters are adjusted relating to a plurality of antennas. In step 520, the time duration of the transmission signals is controlled to ensure that an average EIRP does not exceed a threshold. Mani further discloses (Fig. 6) a multiple antenna transmitter that includes multiple sets of antennas (for example, a first set of antennas 635, and a second set of antenna 645) in which each set can radiate transmission signals forming a beam (such as beams 615, 625). Each of the beams 615, 625 can be pulse controlled to maintain an average EIRP below a predetermined threshold ([0033]). In other words, Mani discloses an antenna array (e.g., 635 and 645). Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of “subarray architecture parameters,” controlling a time duration and pulse controlling would be parameters relating to the antenna array that are selected for the purposes of satisfying an average EIRP with respect to a threshold.
The Examiner suggests that Applicant further clarify the particular subarray architecture parameters that are being referenced in order to differentiate from Examiner’s interpretation. Alternatively, Examiner suggests that Applicant consider the allowable subject matter previously indicated by the Examiner.
Thus, the limitations of the claims have been addressed and the action herein is made FINAL.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5, 6, 12, 16, 17, 23, 27, 28, 30 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to the claim(s), the prior art of record fails to disclose singly or in combination or render obvious all the limitations of the claim(s).
The closest prior art relating to Applicant' s claimed invention is:
US 20070046539 A1 Mani; Sanjay et al.
US 20180006371 A1 Dang; Tuan M. et al.
US 20180167897 A1 Sampath; Ashwin et al.
Mani discloses a method of controlling multiple antenna signal transmission is disclosed. The method includes adjusting signal parameters so that transmission signals from a plurality of antennas combine to form a directional beam. A time duration in which the transmission signals are directed is controlled so that an average EIRP does not exceed a predetermined threshold.
Dang discloses dynamically adjusting the instantaneous power fed to an antenna system to ensure that the antenna transmits at the regulatory or coordinated effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) spectral limit. The antenna may transmit, in accordance with aircraft location and attitude, steerable beam patterns at different scan and skew angle combinations, causing variations in antenna gain and fluctuations in the transmitted EIRP. Using on-board navigational data, an antenna gain and ESD limit may be calculated for a particular scan and skew angle, which may be used to adjust power fed to the antenna such that the antenna transmits substantially at maximum allowable EIRP as the steerable beam pattern is adjusted.
Sampath discloses reporting a power limit along with an indication of at least one constraint upon which the power limit is based. In some aspects, the constraint is a radio frequency (RF) exposure constraint. For example, a power headroom limit calculated by a first apparatus may be constrained by a specific absorption rate (SAR) limit or a maximum permissible exposure (MPE) limit. The first apparatus may thus report to a second apparatus the current power headroom limit of the first apparatus along with an indication of whether the power headroom limit is constrained by an SAR limit or an MPE limit (e.g., as opposed to being constrained by a maximum transmit power limit). The second apparatus may then schedule the first apparatus taking into account the power headroom limit and the corresponding constraint (e.g., maximum power or SAR/MPE).
The aforementioned prior art fails to disclose or suggest that a first angle associated with the average EIRP or a second angle associated with the maximum EIRP is identified based at least on the measurement of at least one of the average EIRP or the maximum EIRP at the one or more elevation angles.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 13-15, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by US 20070046539 A1 to Mani; Sanjay et al.
Re: Claim(s) 1, 13
Mani discloses a method (Fig. 5)
and an apparatus an apparatus for wireless communication at a first network entity, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the apparatus to: (Fig. 4 and 0029 - FIG. 4 shows a mesh network of multiple antenna transceivers. The Examiner notes that each transceiver would inherently comprise a memory and processor)
select at least one transmission configuration parameter of an antenna array based on an equivalent isotropic radiated power (EIRP) threshold including one or more of an average EIRP over multiple subarray architecture parameters or a maximum EIRP for each of the multiple subarray architecture parameters (Fig. 5 and 0031 - FIG. 5 is a flow chart depicting a method of transmitting multiple signals that are radiated by multiple antennas to form a gain pattern and maintain an average EIRP below a threshold. A first step 510 includes adjusting signal parameters so that transmission signals from a plurality of antennas form a beam that is directed at a receiver. A second step 520 includes controlling a time duration in which the transmission signals are controlled to produce a specific beamforming pattern so that an average EIRP of the combined transmission signals does not exceed a predetermined threshold. A third step 530 includes adjusting signal parameters so that transmission signals from the plurality of antennas form a beam that is directed at a different one of a plurality of receivers. A fourth step 540 includes controlling a time duration in which the transmission signals are directed so that an average EIRP of the combined transmission signals does not exceed a predetermined threshold) ;
and transmit based on the at least one transmission configuration parameter (See Id. – Step 540).
Re: Claim(s) 2
Mani discloses further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor, the transceiver being configured to: transmit based on the at least one transmission configuration parameter (Fig. 4 and 0029 - FIG. 4 shows a mesh network of multiple antenna transceivers).
Re: Claim(s) 3, 14
Mani discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to: measure at least one of the average EIRP or the maximum EIRP based on the selected at least one transmission configuration parameters (Fig. 5 – see at least 520 and 540. The Examiner notes that in order to ensure that the combined signals do not exceed a threshold, it would be required for the EIRP to be determined/measured).
Re: Claim(s) 4, 15
Mani discloses wherein measurement of at least one of the average EIRP or the maximum EIRP is at one or more elevation angles above a reference plane (0020 - Additionally, the power regulations must be satisfied over the full radiation pattern of the transmitter. The (EIRP) must remain within the regulated power limits over all azimuth and elevation angles from the transmitting antenna(s). The Examiner notes that if the EIRP must remain within the regulated power limits over all azimuth and elevation angles, then this would be inclusive of any elevation angles above a reference plane).
Re: Claim(s) 8, 19
Mani discloses wherein the at least one transmission configuration parameters of the antenna array are adjusted in instances where a transmission exceeds the EIRP threshold (Fig. 5 and 0031-0032).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mani as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20190373615 A1 to Cimpu; Virgil et al.
Re: Claim(s) 7, 18
Mani discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1 above.
Mani does/do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one transmission configuration parameters comprise weighting factors for at least one antenna element within the antenna array.
However, attention is directed to Cimpu which discloses said limitation (0165 - interference mitigation parameters comprises generating precoding weights and beamsteering weights of antennas. The Examiner notes that in the context of the entire document, maximum EIRP compliance is within the purview of interference mitigation).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Mani invention by employing the teaching as taught by Cimpu to provide the ability include weighting factors for antennas within transmission configuration parameters. The motivation for the combination is given by Cimpu (0002 and 0014-0016).
Claim(s) 9-11, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mani as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20180006371 A1 to Dang; Tuan M. et al.
Re: Claim(s) 9, 20
Mani discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1 above.
Mani does/do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the EIRP threshold is based on a period of time and a configuration of the antenna array.
However, attention is directed to Dang which discloses said limitation (0032 - stations 103 and/or 105 determining, for an updated scan and skew angle combination, an antenna gain and an EIRP spectral density (ESD) limit in accordance with the characteristics of the particular antenna used for signal transmission. Once these values are known, an antenna input power may be adjusted to compensate for these changes to ensure that the transmitted EIRP is maintained at a maximum level dictated by the ESD limit at the new scan and skew angle).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Mani invention by employing the teaching as taught by Dang to provide the ability for EIRP limits to be dictated by antenna configuration for a time period encompassed by a scan. The motivation for the combination is given by Dang (0002).
Re: Claim(s) 10, 21
Mani discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1 above.
Mani does/do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the configuration of the antenna array comprises at least a single subarray configuration or a multiple subarray configuration.
However, attention is directed to Dang which discloses said limitation (0032 - stations 103 and/or 105 determining, for an updated scan and skew angle combination, an antenna gain and an EIRP spectral density (ESD) limit in accordance with the characteristics of the particular antenna used for signal transmission. Once these values are known, an antenna input power may be adjusted to compensate for these changes to ensure that the transmitted EIRP is maintained at a maximum level dictated by the ESD limit at the new scan and skew angle).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Mani invention by employing the teaching as taught by Dang to provide the ability for EIRP limits to be dictated by antenna configuration for a time period encompassed by a scan. The motivation for the combination is given by Dang (0002).
Re: Claim(s) 11, 22
Mani discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1 above.
Mani does/do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the EIRP threshold indicates the period of time for the average EIRP allowed for a particular angle.
However, attention is directed to Dang which discloses said limitation (0032 - stations 103 and/or 105 determining, for an updated scan and skew angle combination, an antenna gain and an EIRP spectral density (ESD) limit in accordance with the characteristics of the particular antenna used for signal transmission. Once these values are known, an antenna input power may be adjusted to compensate for these changes to ensure that the transmitted EIRP is maintained at a maximum level dictated by the ESD limit at the new scan and skew angle).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Mani invention by employing the teaching as taught by Dang to provide the ability for EIRP limits to be dictated by antenna configuration for a time period encompassed by a scan. The motivation for the combination is given by Dang (0002).
Claim(s) 24-26, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mani in view of US 20180167897 A1 to Sampath; Ashwin et al.
Re: Claim(s) 24, 29
Mani discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1 and 3 above.
Mani does/do not appear to explicitly disclose a corresponding method and a second apparatus for wireless communication at a second network entity, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the apparatus to: provide, to a first network entity, the EIRP threshold.
However, attention is directed to Sampath which discloses said limitation (Fig. 4 – apparatus comprising memory 404 and processor 410 which implements the method depicted in Fig. 5. Fig. 5 and 0095-0099 - FIG. 5 illustrates a process 500 for communication in accordance with some aspects of the disclosure. The process 500 may take place within a processing circuit (e.g., the processing circuit 410 of FIG. 4), which may be located in a UE, a CPE, a TRP, a BS, an eNB, a gNB, or some other suitable apparatus … At block 502, an apparatus (e.g., a UE, or CPE) determines a transmit power limit for the apparatus … the transmit power limit may be for a particular sub-array (e.g., an antenna sub-array) of the apparatus … At block 504, the apparatus generates an indication of whether the transmit power limit is constrained by a radio frequency (RF) exposure limit. In some aspects, the radio frequency exposure limit may be a maximum permissible exposure (MPE) regulatory limit. In some aspects, the indication may indicate whether the transmit power limit is constrained by a maximum transmit power limit … At block 506, the apparatus sends the transmit power limit and the indication to another apparatus (e.g., an eNB)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Mani invention by employing the teaching as taught by Sampath to provide the ability for a second network entity to transmit a EIRP threshold as part of a configuration to a first network entity. The motivation for the combination is given by Sampath (0002).
Re: Claim(s) 25
Mani in view of Sampath discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 24 above.
Sampath further discloses a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (Fig. 4 – 402).
Re: Claim(s) 26
Mani discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 24 above.
Mani further discloses wherein measurement of at least one of the average EIRP or the maximum EIRP is at one or more elevation angles above a reference plane (0020 - Additionally, the power regulations must be satisfied over the full radiation pattern of the transmitter. The (EIRP) must remain within the regulated power limits over all azimuth and elevation angles from the transmitting antenna(s). The Examiner notes that if the EIRP must remain within the regulated power limits over all azimuth and elevation angles, then this would be inclusive of any elevation angles above a reference plane).
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 KASHIF SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-3188. The examiner can normally be reached on M-R 6:00 EST to 16:00 EST.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KASHIF SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights