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 .
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 1-5, 8-10, 12-15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (EP2670185B1) in view of Raith (US 6760311 B1)
Regarding Claim 1, Yoshida teaches A method comprising: receiving at least one wireless link capacity estimate from a first device, the wireless link capacity estimate indicating an estimated data transfer or estimated transmission rate associated with a communication device (Yoshida [0031, line 3] a wireless link quality information acquisition portion (wireless link quality information acquisition means) 104, a model parameter estimation portion (model parameter estimation means) 105. Fig3 (104) shows link quality information acquisition portion. and Fig 3(105) shows estimation portion. Fig 3(101) shows data transmission portion)
receiving at least one throughout estimate from a second device, the at least one throughput estimate is associated with a data transfer rate during a time period (Yoshida ([0031] The function of the mobile communication system 1 includes a data transmission portion 101, a reception rate acquisition portion (throughput acquisition means) 103 [0031, line 6] a throughput estimation portion (throughput estimation means) 106. Fig 3 (106) shows throughput estimation portion from the transmitting device.)
But does not teach
determining, based on the at least one wireless link capacity estimate or the at least one throughput estimate, a wireless link metric indicating or denoting a power consumption or a load associated with the communication device;
However, Raith teaches (Raith [line 28, col 2] a mobile station measures its operating temperature and compares that temperature with a threshold)
Yoshida does not teach
determining, based on the wireless link metric, whether to apply a level of thermal mitigation to the communication device.
However, Raith teaches (Raith [line 30, col 2] When the measured temperature exceeds the threshold, the mobile station reduces its consumed transmit power by reducing its transmission rate. The mobile station may first request the reduction from the system, or may independently decide to reduce its transmission rate. In either case, the mobile station will transmit an indication of the reduced transmission rate to the system.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Yoshida et al by incorporating Raith to arrive the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the device (i.e mobile station) after receiving the transmission to measure its thermal state and apply a level of thermal mitigation.
Regarding Claim 2, combination of Yoshida, and Raith disclose the claimed invention of Claim 1
But do not teach
wherein the apply the level of thermal mitigation comprises reducing a temperature or heat associated with the communication device.
However, Raith et al teaches
(Raith [line 28, col 2] a mobile station measures its operating temperature and compares that temperature with a threshold. When the measured temperature exceeds the threshold, the mobile station reduces its consumed transmit power by reducing its transmission rate.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Yoshida et al by incorporating Raith to arrive the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the device to reduce the temperature as a part of thermal mitigation.
Regarding Claim 3, combination of Yoshida, and Raith disclose the claimed invention of Claim 1
But do not teach
wherein the determining the level of the thermal mitigation comprises determining a latency sensitivity associated with transmission of data.
However, Raith discloses,
(Raith [line 53, col 2] reductions in transmission rate can be decided based both on the measured temperature and on the transmit status of the mobile station. For example, if the mobile station is in the middle of a higher layer message, it may continue to transmit lower layer frames even after the first temperature threshold is exceeded. However, continued transmission can be predicated on the measured temperature being lower than a second threshold. By permitting the mobile station to complete a higher layer message, retransmission and processing delay are minimized.)
(note: “latency sensitivity” is referred here as “processing delay”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Yoshida et al by incorporating Raith to arrive the invention.
The motivation would have enabled device to determine the latency sensitivity while determining the level of thermal mitigation.
Regarding Claim 4, combination of Yoshida, and Raith disclose the claimed invention of Claim 1
But do not teach
further comprising: applying the level of thermal mitigation to the communication device in response to determining that the wireless link metric exceeds a predetermined threshold and determining a level of latency sensitivity associated with transmission of data.
However, by combining (Raith [line 28, col 2]and [line 53, col 2]) this can be achieved.
(Raith [line 28, col 2] a mobile station measures its operating temperature and compares that temperature with a threshold. When the measured temperature exceeds the threshold, the mobile station reduces its consumed transmit power by reducing its transmission rate.)
(Raith [line 53, col 2] reductions in transmission rate can be decided based both on the measured temperature and on the transmit status of the mobile station. For example, if the mobile station is in the middle of a higher layer message, it may continue to transmit lower layer frames even after the first temperature threshold is exceeded. However, continued transmission can be predicated on the measured temperature being lower than a second threshold. By permitting the mobile station to complete a higher layer message, retransmission and processing delay are minimized.)
(note: “latency sensitivity” is referred here as “processing delay”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Yoshida et al by incorporating Raith to arrive the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the device to measure both the threshold level of temperature associated and take latency sensitivity into consideration while applying thermal mitigation.
Regarding Claim 5, combination of Yoshida, and Raith disclose the claimed invention of Claim 1
But do not teach
further comprising: applying the level of thermal mitigation to reduce the data transfer rate by a percentage.
However, Raith discloses, (Raith [line 44, col 2] the mobile station can inform the user of the reduction in transmission rate, as well as provide an indication that the reduction is due to increased temperature of the mobile station. The heat alert can take different forms, including a displayed icon, a warning sound or a voice alert. This enables the user to move to a better transmit position, which may result in the system instructing the mobile station to reduce its transmit power, thereby reducing the mobile station's temperature.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Yoshida et al by incorporating Raith to arrive the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the device to reduce the temperature as a part of thermal mitigation.
Regarding Claim 8, combination of Yoshida, and Raith disclose the claimed invention of Claim 1
But do not teach
the apply the at least one level comprises causing a media client to lower, during a predetermined time period, the data transfer or the transmission rate of content configured to be transmitted by the media client.
However, Raith discloses, (Raith [Line 29, col2] When the measured temperature exceeds the threshold, the mobile station reduces its consumed transmit power by reducing its transmission rate.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Yoshida et al by incorporating Raith to arrive the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the device to reduce the temperature as a part of thermal mitigation.
Regarding Claim 9, combination of Yoshida and Raith disclose Claim 3
But do not teach
determining a type of content associated with the transmission of the data.
However, Raith teaches, (Raith [line 53, col 2] reductions in transmission rate can be decided based both on the measured temperature and on the transmit status of the mobile station. For example, if the mobile station is in the middle of a higher layer message, it may continue to transmit lower layer frames even after the first temperature threshold is exceeded. However, continued transmission can be predicated on the measured temperature being lower than a second threshold. By permitting the mobile station to complete a higher layer message, retransmission and processing delay (latency) are minimized.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Yoshida et al by incorporating Raith to arrive the invention.
The motivation would have enabled the device to determine between higher layer frames and the lower layer frames (i.e contents) of transmission data.
Regarding Claim 10, combination of Yoshida and Raith disclose Claim 1
But do not teach
wherein the determining the wireless link metric is further based on a determined maximum wireless link capacity in an instance in which a value associated with the at least one throughput estimate is unknown or undetermined.
However, Yoshida et al further teach (Yoshida [0166] The throughput estimation device according to Supplementary Note 1, wherein the throughput estimation means is configured to estimate the throughput based on a mathematical model denoting a relationship between the throughput and the wireless link quality information, and on the acquired wireless link quality information.)
(note: algorithm normally wants to use a throughput estimate to compute the link metric. But if the estimate does not exist or cannot be determined at that moment, it falls back to known upper bound. Algorithm can be modified to use the mathematical model.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Yoshida et al by incorporating Raith to arrive the invention.
The motivation would have shown as to how to modify the algorithm to use in the mathematical model where link metric can be the highest value while throughput estimate is unknown.
Regarding Claim 12, Yoshida teaches
An apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and at least one memory storing instructions, that when executed by the one or more processors, ([0029] The receiving device 200 includes a CPU, a storage device (memory and HDD), The receiving device 200 is configured to realize an after mentioned function by letting the CPU implement a program stored in the storage device.)
receive at least one wireless link capacity estimate from a first device, the wireless link capacity estimate indicating an estimated data transfer or estimated transmission rate associated with the apparatus (Yoshida [0031, line 3]a wireless link quality information acquisition portion (wireless link quality information acquisition means) 104, a model parameter estimation portion (model parameter estimation means) 105. Fig3 (104) shows link quality information acquisition portion. and Fig 3(105) shows estimation portion. Fig 3(101) shows data transmission portion)
receive at least one throughout estimate from a second device, the at least one throughput estimate is associated with a data transfer rate during a time period; (Yoshida [0031] The function of the mobile communication system 1 includes a data transmission portion 101, a reception rate acquisition portion (throughput acquisition means) 103 [0031, line 6] a throughput estimation portion (throughput estimation means) 106. Fig 3 (106) shows throughput estimation portion from the transmitting device.)
But does not teach
determine, based on the at least one wireless link capacity estimate or the at least one throughput estimate, a wireless link metric indicating or denoting a power consumption or a load associated with the apparatus;
However, Raith teaches (Raith [line 28, col 2] a mobile station measures its operating temperature and compares that temperature with a threshold.)
Yoshida et al do not teach
determining, based on the wireless link metric, whether to apply a level of thermal mitigation to the communication device.
However, Raith et al. teaches (Raith [line 28, col 2] a mobile station measures its operating temperature and compares that temperature with a threshold. When the measured temperature exceeds the threshold, the mobile station reduces its consumed transmit power by reducing its transmission rate.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Yoshida et al by incorporating Raith to arrive the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the device (i.e mobile station) after receiving the transmission to measure its thermal state and apply a level of thermal mitigation.
Regarding Claim 13, combination of Yoshida and Raith disclose Claim 12
But do not teach
wherein when the one or more processors further execute the instructions, the apparatus is configured to: perform the apply the level of thermal mitigation by reducing a temperature or heat associated with the apparatus.
However, Raith teaches (Raith [line 28, col 2] According to exemplary embodiments of the present invention, a mobile station measures its operating temperature and compares that temperature with a threshold. When the measured temperature exceeds the threshold, the mobile station reduces its consumed transmit power by reducing its transmission rate.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Yoshida et al by incorporating Raith to arrive the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the device to reduce the temperature as a part of thermal mitigation.
Regarding Claim 14, combination of Yoshida and Raith disclose Claim 12
But do not teach
the apparatus is configured to: perform the determining the level of the thermal mitigation by determining a latency sensitivity associated with transmission of data.
However, Raith teaches, (Raith [line 53, col 2] reductions in transmission rate can be decided based both on the measured temperature and on the transmit status of the mobile station. For example, if the mobile station is in the middle of a higher layer message, it may continue to transmit lower layer frames even after the first temperature threshold is exceeded. However, continued transmission can be predicated on the measured temperature being lower than a second threshold. By permitting the mobile station to complete a higher layer message, retransmission and processing delay (latency) are minimized.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Yoshida et al by incorporating Raith to arrive the invention.
The motivation would have enabled device to determine the latency sensitivity while determining the level of thermal mitigation.
Regarding Claim 15, combination of Yoshida and Raith disclose Claim 12
But do not teach
wherein when the one or more processors further execute the instructions, the apparatus is configured to: apply the level of thermal mitigation to the apparatus in response to determining that the wireless link metric exceeds a predetermined threshold and determining a level of latency sensitivity associated with transmission of data.
However, by combining (Raith [line 28, col 2]and [line 53, col 2]) this can be achieved.
(Raith [line 28, col 2] a mobile station measures its operating temperature and compares that temperature with a threshold. When the measured temperature exceeds the threshold, the mobile station reduces its consumed transmit power by reducing its transmission rate.)
(Raith [line 53, col 2] reductions in transmission rate can be decided based both on the measured temperature and on the transmit status of the mobile station. For example, if the mobile station is in the middle of a higher layer message, it may continue to transmit lower layer frames even after the first temperature threshold is exceeded. However, continued transmission can be predicated on the measured temperature being lower than a second threshold. By permitting the mobile station to complete a higher layer message, retransmission and processing delay are minimized.)
(note: “latency sensitivity” is referred here as “processing delay”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Yoshida et al by incorporating Raith to arrive the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the device to measure both the threshold level of temperature associated and take latency sensitivity into consideration while applying thermal mitigation.
Regarding Claim 19, Yoshida teaches
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause: receiving at least one wireless link capacity estimate from a first device, (Yoshida [0029] The receiving device 200 includes a CPU, a storage device (memory and HDD), The receiving device 200 is configured to realize an after mentioned function by letting the CPU implement a program stored in the storage device.)
receiving at least one wireless link capacity estimate from a first device, the wireless link capacity estimate indicating an estimated data transfer or estimated transmission rate associated with the Communication device (Yoshida[0031, line 3] a wireless link quality information acquisition portion (wireless link quality information acquisition means) 104, a model parameter estimation portion (model parameter estimation means) 105. Fig3 (104) shows link quality information acquisition portion. and Fig 3(105) shows estimation portion. Fig 3(101) shows data transmission portion)
receive at least one throughout estimate from a second device, the at least one throughput estimate is associated with a data transfer rate during a time period; (Yoshida [0031] The function of the mobile communication system 1 includes a data transmission portion 101, a reception rate acquisition portion (throughput acquisition means) 103 [0031, line 6] a throughput estimation portion (throughput estimation means) 106. Fig 3 (106) shows throughput estimation portion from the transmitting device.)
But does not teach
determine, based on the at least one wireless link capacity estimate or the at least one throughput estimate, a wireless link metric indicating or denoting a power consumption or a load associated with the communication device;
However, Raith teaches (Raith [line 28, col 2] a mobile station measures its operating temperature and compares that temperature with a threshold.)
Yoshida do not teach
determining, based on the wireless link metric, whether to apply a level of thermal mitigation to the communication device.
However, Raith teaches (Raith [line 30, col 2] When the measured temperature exceeds the threshold, the mobile station reduces its consumed transmit power by reducing its transmission rate. The mobile station may first request the reduction from the system, or may independently decide to reduce its transmission rate. In either case, the mobile station will transmit an indication of the reduced transmission rate to the system. In this way, the system can reallocate resources, e.g., by allocating released uplink timeslots to other mobile stations, by allocating released uplink spreading codes to other mobile stations and/or by allocating additional downlink timeslots to the mobile station that is reducing its transmission rate.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Yoshida et al by incorporating Raith to arrive the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the device (i.e mobile station) after receiving the transmission to measure its thermal state and apply a level of thermal mitigation.
Regarding Claim 20, combination of Yoshida and Raith disclose Claim 19
But do not teach
further cause: performing the apply the level of thermal mitigation by reducing a temperature or heat associated with the communication device.
However, Raith teaches, (Raith [line 28, col 2] a mobile station measures its operating temperature and compares that temperature with a threshold. When the measured temperature exceeds the threshold, the mobile station reduces its consumed transmit power by reducing its transmission rate.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Yoshida et al by incorporating Raith to arrive the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the device to reduce the temperature as a part of thermal mitigation.
Claim 6,7,11,16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al (EEP2670185B1) in view of Raith (US 6760311 B1) in further view of Venkata et al (US20240224187A1)
Regarding Claim 6, combination of Yoshida, and Raith disclose the claimed invention of Claim 1
But do not teach
further comprising: determining that the level of thermal mitigation is at least one level among a plurality of thermal mitigation levels.
However, Venkata et al disclose, (Venkata [0014] In at least some embodiments, the UE device determines a thermal mitigation priority for each of the plurality of secondary cells based on their associated data measurement.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified the combination of Yoshida et al and Raith by incorporating Venkata et al to arrive the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled to determine one level out of the plurality of the thermal mitigation levels.
Regarding Claim 7, combination of Yoshida and Raith disclose the claimed invention of Claim 1
But do not teach
a lowest level among the plurality of thermal mitigation levels is associated with not applying thermal mitigation to the communication device and a highest level among the plurality of thermal mitigation levels is associated with applying a highest thermal mitigation to the communication device in relation to other levels of the plurality of thermal mitigation levels.
However, Venkata et al disclose, (Lowest level is disclosed in Fig 4 (416) [0070, line 8] and the highest level is on Fig 4 (408, 417) [0062, line 5])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified the combination of Yoshida et al and Raith by incorporating Venkata et al to arrive the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled to define the lowest and highest level of thermal mitigation levels.
Regarding Claim 11, combination of Yoshida and Raith disclose the claimed invention of Claim 1
But do not teach
wherein: a lowest level among the plurality of thermal mitigation levels is associated with not applying the thermal mitigation to the communication device and a highest level among the plurality of thermal mitigation levels is associated with applying a highest thermal mitigation to the communication device in relation to other levels of the plurality of thermal mitigation levels.
However, Raith teaches (Lowest level is disclosed in Fig 4 (416) [0070, line 8] and the highest level is on Fig 4 (408, 417) [0062, line 5])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified the combination of Yoshida et al and Raith by incorporating Venkata et al to arrive the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled to define the lowest and highest level of thermal mitigation levels.
Regarding Claim 16, combination of Yoshida and Raith disclose Claim 12
But do not teach
wherein the apparatus comprises a head mounted display device.
However, Venkata et al teach, [0040] a cellular-enabled wearable device (it can be head mounted display device)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified the combination of Yoshida et al and Raith by incorporating Venkata et al to arrive the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the fact that the apparatus can also be a head mounted display device (referred to as a “cellular enabled wearable device”).
Regarding Claim 17, combination of Yoshida and Raith disclose Claim 12
But do not teach
wherein when the one or more processors further execute the instructions, the apparatus is configured to: determine that the level of thermal mitigation is at least one level among a plurality of thermal mitigation levels.
However, Venkata et al teach
(Venkata [0014] In at least some embodiments, the UE device determines a thermal mitigation priority for each of the plurality of secondary cells based on their associated data measurement.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified the combination of Yoshida et al and Raith by incorporating Venkata et al to arrive the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled to determine one level out of the plurality of the thermal mitigation levels.
Regarding Claim 18, combination of Yoshida and Raith disclose Claim 17
But do not teach
wherein: a lowest level among the plurality of thermal mitigation levels is associated with not applying thermal mitigation to the apparatus and a highest level among the plurality of thermal mitigation levels is associated with applying a highest thermal mitigation to the apparatus in relation to other levels of the plurality of thermal mitigation levels.
However, Venkata et al teach Lowest level is disclosed in Fig 4 (416) [0070, line 8] and the highest level is on Fig 4 (417) [0062, line 5]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified the combination of Yoshida et al and Raith by incorporating Venkata et al to arrive the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled to define the lowest and highest level of thermal mitigation levels.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANA HASSAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-8939. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 5712705371. 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.
/RANA H MAHMUD/ Acting Patent Examiner of Art Unit 2644
/KATHY W WANG-HURST/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2644