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
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0141784) in view of Rao et al. (US 2008/0025341).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 16, Kim discloses a method, a system, and a device, the method comprising:
comparing, using a processing device, a measured temperature of a component of a wireless device with a designated temperature value (Fig. 5 step S110; paragraphs [0006], [0024]; e.g., the temperature of the terminal may not exceed (or may be unlikely to exceed) a threshold temperature);
determining, using the processing device, if a transmission parameter of the wireless device should be adjusted, the determining comprising determining that the measured temperature is a designated difference from the designated temperature value (Fig. 5 step S130; paragraphs [0026], [0053]; e.g., adjust a transmission power limit for uplink transmission based on the temperature obtained in operation S110 and the resource block allocation information received in operation S120);
identifying, using the processing device, an adjustment to be made to the transmission parameter in response to determining that a transmission parameter should be adjusted (paragraphs [0026], [0050]; e.g., a terminal may adjust a transmission power limit for transmitting signals to a base station to reduce power consumption at the terminal).
Kim fails to specifically disclose adjusting, using the processing device, the transmission parameter of one or more transmission operations of the wireless device based on the identified adjustment.
However, Rao discloses adjusting, using the processing device, the transmission parameter of one or more transmission operations of the wireless device based on the identified adjustment (Fig. 5 step 504; paragraphs [0004], [0024];e.g., determining an adjustment in view of the temperature, changing a duty-cycle of the device in accordance with the adjustment).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kim in combination of Rao as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant to adjusting the transmission parameter of one or more transmission operations of the wireless device based on the identified adjustment for advantages of mitigating the effects of heat dissipation within a radio while maintaining system throughput and linear operating characterstics (Rao: paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 2, Kim in combination with Rao discloses the method of claim 1, fails to specifically disclose wherein the transmission parameter is a transmission duty cycle.
However, Rao discloses the transmission parameter is a transmission duty cycle (paragraphs [0004], [0024]; e.g., The temperature can be compared to a threshold, and if the temperature exceeds the threshold, an adjustment can be performed to the duty-cycle).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kim in combination of Rao as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant to have the transmission parameter is a transmission duty cycle in order to prevent thermal failure as ambient heat rises.
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 17, Kim in combination with Rao discloses the method, the system, and the device of claims 2, 10, and 16, fails to specifically disclose wherein the identified adjustment comprises an adjustment to a percentage of the transmission duty cycle of the wireless device.
However, Rao discloses the identified adjustment comprises an adjustment to a percentage of the transmission duty cycle of the wireless device (paragraphs [0026], [0031]; e.g., The duty-cycle 300, as a result of timing adjustments by the controller 240 due to temperature readings, provides an indication of transmit and receive times that are optimal to the mobile device in view of operating performance).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kim in combination of Rao as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant to adjust the transmission duty cycle to a percentage of the wireless device in order to prevent thermal failure as ambient heat rises.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Kim in combination with Rao discloses the method and the system of claims 1 and 10, wherein the identifying of the adjustment further comprises: identifying an adjustment mode from a plurality of adjustment modes, and wherein the plurality of adjustment modes comprises a first adjustment mode and a second adjustment mode (Kim: paragraphs [0006], [0026]; e.g., a terminal may adjust a transmission power limit based on a block error rate (BLER), such that the BLER remains below a threshold (e.g., while minimizing the transmission power limit)).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Kim in combination with Rao discloses the method and the system of claims 4 and 12, fails to specifically disclose wherein the first adjustment mode comprises a percentage change to a transmission duty cycle determined based on a difference between the measured temperature and the designated temperature value, and wherein the second adjustment mode comprises the percentage change to the transmission duty cycle determined based on the difference between the measured temperature and the designated temperature value multiplied by a scaling factor.
However, Rao discloses wherein the first adjustment mode comprises a percentage change to a transmission duty cycle determined based on a difference between the measured temperature and the designated temperature value, and wherein the second adjustment mode comprises the percentage change to the transmission duty cycle determined based on the difference between the measured temperature and the designated temperature value multiplied by a scaling factor ([0031]-[0032]; e.g., the controller 240 can increase the duty-cycle 300 to lengthen time periods between transmissions or receptions upon the sensor 230 detecting increasing temperatures).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kim in combination of Rao as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant to have the first adjustment mode comprises a percentage change to a transmission duty cycle determined based on a difference between the measured temperature and the designated temperature value, and wherein the second adjustment mode comprises the percentage change to the transmission duty cycle determined based on the difference between the measured temperature and the designated temperature value multiplied by a scaling factor for advantages of mitigating the effects of heat dissipation within a radio while maintaining system throughput and linear operating characterstic (Rao: paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claims 6, 14, and 19, Kim in combination with Rao discloses the method, the system, and the device of claims 5, 13, and 18, fails to specifically disclose wherein the identifying the adjustment comprises: identifying an increase in a transmission duty cycle in response to determining that the measured temperature is less than or equal to the designated temperature value.
However, Rao discloses the identifying the adjustment comprises: identifying an increase in a transmission duty cycle in response to determining that the measured temperature is less than or equal to the designated temperature value (Rao: [0031]-[0032]).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kim in combination of Rao as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant to identifying an increase in a transmission duty cycle in response to determining that the measured temperature is less than or equal to the designated temperature value in order to prevent thermal failure as ambient heat rises.
Regarding claim 7, Kim in combination with Rao discloses the method of claim 6,
wherein the first adjustment mode is identified in response to determining that the measured temperature is less than a threshold temperature value minus a designated step size (Kim: paragraphs [0026], [0042], [0045]).
Regarding claims 8, 15, and 20, Kim in combination with Rao discloses the method, the system, and the device of claims 5, 13, and 18, fails to specifically disclose wherein the identifying the adjustment comprises: identifying a decrease in a transmission duty cycle in response to determining that the measured temperature is greater than the designated temperature value.
However, Rao discloses the identifying the adjustment comprises: identifying a decrease in a transmission duty cycle in response to determining that the measured temperature is greater than the designated temperature value (Rao: paragraphs [0025], [0031]; e.g., the controller 240 can decrease the duty-cycle for decreasing temperatures).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kim in combination of Rao as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant to identifying a decrease in a transmission duty cycle in response to determining that the measured temperature is greater than the designated temperature value in order to prevent thermal failure as ambient heat rises.
Regarding claim 9, Kim in combination with Rao discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the first adjustment mode is identified in response to determining that the measured temperature is greater than a threshold temperature value (Kim: paragraphs [0045], [0063], [0076]; e.g., when the temperature at the terminal increases or is greater than a temperature threshold, the second power headroom that is reported may be less than the first power headroom such that the base station may allocate a reduced number of (e.g., less) resource blocks to the terminal).
Claim 18 is rejected with the same reasons set forth to claims 4 and 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US 2025/0212140) discloses limiting transmission power of a transmission signal based upon temperature detection.
Kothiwale et al. (US 2021/0168838) discloses identifying a set of data transmission based on determining a current temperature of the UE is greater than a threshold temperature.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY X PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7115. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30-5:00.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/TIMOTHY X PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648