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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-16 and 18-25 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/17/2026.
Currently, claims 1-8 and 17 are pending for consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 02/10/2025 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 1 of claim 6, replace “claim 1” with -- claim 5 --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz (US 20240422699 A1) in view of Comsa (US 20200037254 A1), and in further view of Marinier (US 20200145079 A1).
Consider claim 1, Katz discloses an apparatus configured for wireless communication (read as mobile device 150, figure 1, par [0016]), comprising:
one or more memories comprising processor-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the processor-executable instructions and cause the apparatus (read as mobile device 150 that transmits RF signals using antenna 161 with associated EIRP, and includes controller 180 having a processor and memory in which processor-executable code is executed, figure 1, par [0016]-[0017]) to:
transmit during a first time interval in accordance with a first effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) limit (read as transmission under an EIRP threshold (limit) with a first time interval (“during part of a time window”) in which controller 180 increases power above a threshold, and using beamforming information to determine how much the power should be increased, while maintaining time-averaged EIRP compliance for the time window, par [0019]-[0020] and [0023]);
transmit during a second time interval in accordance with a second EIRP limit lower than the first EIRP limit (read as a second time interval (‘during another part of the time window”) where transmission power is decreased/backed off so that the time-averaged EIRP remains within the determined threshold, par [0020]-[0021]).
However, Katz discloses the claimed invention above and using beamforming for transmission (par [0023]) but does not specifically disclose wherein the second EIRP limit is for a multiple beam (multi-beam) communication condition.
Nonetheless, Comsa teaches a multi-beam communication condition in which a WTRU uses a first transmission beam and a second transmission beam (par [0007]) and when transmitting the second beam with the first beam exceeds an EIRP thresholds, performs power allocation and scales one or more beams to satisfy the EIRP threshold (par [0008]), which correspond under BRI to applying an EIRP-restricted condition for the multi-beam case (par [0007] and [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Comsa’s multi-beam EIRP-threshold-driven power allocation and beam scaling into Katz’s EIRP management across different time portions of a time window in order to improve EIRP compliance for transmission that include simultaneous multi-beam operations.
However, Katz, as modified by Comsa, discloses the claimed invention above and using beamforming for transmission (par [0023]) but does not specifically disclose wherein the first EIRP limit is associated with a first beamforming vector corresponding to a single peak in a beamspace.
Nonetheless, Marinier discloses transmission using a set of beams (multi-beam) and that each beam may correspond to pre-coding/co-phase weights (beamforming vector) (par [0040] and [0044]) and describes beam space and a beam’s peak direction with EIRP Peak (figures 3A-3B, par [0042]), which supports associating an EIRP constraint with a beamforming vector corresponding to a peak in beamspace (see figures 3A-3B, par [0040], [0042] and [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Marinier’s teaching of beams formed by pre-coding weighs and beam characterization using beam space, peak direction and EIRP Peak into Katz, which modified by Comsa, in order to improve and standardize the beam terminology and beamforming-vector characterization used with the EIRP-managed transmission.
Consider claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, Katz, as modified by Comsa and Marinier, discloses the clamed invention above but does not specifically disclose wherein the multi-beam communication condition includes concurrent transmission using a second beamforming vector with at least two peaks in the beamspace.
Nonetheless, Marinier further discloses transmission using a set of beams (multi-beam) and that each beam may correspond to pre-coding/co-phase weights (beamforming vector) (par [0040] and [0044]) and describes beam space and a beam’s peak direction with EIRP Peak (figures 3A-3B, par [0042]), which supports associating an EIRP constraint with a beamforming vector corresponding to a peak in beamspace (see figures 3A-3B, par [0040], [0042] and [0044]); and further discloses beam distribution pattern comprising two peaks as shown in figure 3B, par [0042].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Marinier’s multi-beam transmission technique with two peaks into the beamforming of Katz, which modified by Marinier, in order to improve the Katz’s applicability to beamformed transmission modes that radiate energy in more than one beam/lobe concurrently while keeping EIRP-control behavior organized over time window.
Consider claim 4, as applied to claim 1 above, Katz, as modified by Comsa and Marinier, discloses wherein the first time interval comprises a first percentage of a time window and the second time interval comprises a second percentage of the time window, wherein the first percentage and the second percentage sum to 100 percent (read as the combined/total time period bases on the sum of some portion/part of the time window and another part of the time window, which some portion/part of the time window comprises a first percentage of the combined/total time period, and another part of the time window comprises a second percentage of the combined/total time period, the sum of first percentage and second percentage would be 100 percent of combined/total time period, par [0019]-[0020]).
Consider claim 7, as applied to claim 1 above, Katz, as modified by Comsa and Marinier, discloses wherein the first EIRP limit comprises at least one of a first average EIRP limit, a first maximum EIRP limit, or a first instantaneous EIRP limit (read as averaged (time-averaged) EIRP threshold over a time window while also controlling instantaneous power of the EIRP (including instantaneous increase/exceedance during part of the time window), par [0019]-[0020]).
Consider claim 8, as applied to claim 1 above, Katz, as modified by Comsa and Marinier, discloses wherein the second EIRP limit comprises at least one of: a second average EIRP limit, a second maximum EIRP limit, or a combined EIRP limit that uses a single-beam EIRP limit and a multi-beam EIRP limit (read as a backoff portion (“another part of the time window”) where transmission power is decreased/backed off so the average/time-averaged EIRP stay within a defined threshold, which corresponding to the “second average EIRP limit” as claimed under BRI, par [0021]-[0021]).
Consider claim 17, Katz discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a network entity (read as mobile device 150 that transmits RF signals using antenna 161 with associated EIRP, and includes controller 180 having a processor and memory in which processor-executable code is executed, figure 1, par [0016]-[0017]), comprising:
transmit during a first time interval in accordance with a first effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) limit (read as transmission under an EIRP threshold (limit) with a first time interval (“during part of a time window”) in which controller 180 increases power above a threshold, and using beamforming information to determine how much the power should be increased, while maintaining time-averaged EIRP compliance for the time window, par [0019]-[0020] and [0023]);
transmit during a second time interval in accordance with a second EIRP limit lower than the first EIRP limit (read as a second time interval (‘during another part of the time window”) where transmission power is decreased/backed off so that the time-averaged EIRP remains within the determined threshold, par [0020]-[0021]).
However, Katz discloses the claimed invention above and using beamforming for transmission (par [0023]) but does not specifically disclose wherein the second EIRP limit is for a multiple beam (multi-beam) communication condition.
Nonetheless, Comsa teaches a multi-beam communication condition in which a WTRU uses a first transmission beam and a second transmission beam (par [0007]) and when transmitting the second beam with the first beam exceeds an EIRP thresholds, performs power allocation and scales one or more beams to satisfy the EIRP threshold (par [0008]), which correspond under BRI to applying an EIRP-restricted condition for the multi-beam case (par [0007] and [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Comsa’s multi-beam EIRP-threshold-driven power allocation and beam scaling into Katz’s EIRP management across different time portions of a time window in order to improve EIRP compliance for transmission that include simultaneous multi-beam operations.
However, Katz, as modified by Comsa, discloses the claimed invention above and using beamforming for transmission (par [0023]) but does not specifically disclose wherein the first EIRP limit is associated with a first beamforming vector corresponding to a single peak in a beamspace.
Nonetheless, Marinier discloses transmission using a set of beams (multi-beam) and that each beam may correspond to pre-coding/co-phase weights (beamforming vector) (par [0040] and [0044]) and describes beam space and a beam’s peak direction with EIRP Peak (figures 3A-3B, par [0042]), which supports associating an EIRP constraint with a beamforming vector corresponding to a peak in beamspace (see figures 3A-3B, par [0040], [0042] and [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Marinier’s teaching of beams formed by pre-coding weighs and beam characterization using beam space, peak direction and EIRP Peak into Katz, which modified by Comsa, in order to improve and standardize the beam terminology and beamforming-vector characterization used with the EIRP-managed transmission.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz (US 20240422699 A1) in view of Comsa (US 20200037254 A1), and in further view of Marinier (US 20200145079 A1), and in further view of Gordaychik (US 20200274656 A1).
Consider claim 3, as applied to claim 1 above, Katz, as modified by Comsa and Marinier, discloses the claimed invention and the multi-beam communication condition above but does not specifically disclose wherein the multi-beam communication condition is associated with a multiple user multiple input multiple output communication, from multiple transmit nodes, as observed at a victim node.
Nonetheless, Gordaychik discloses UE may support corresponding beams and operation in an aggressor/victim context including victim (cell) and protecting victim transmissions, and identifies MU-MIMO and multi-TRPs, and further discloses signaling multiple-TRP information, par [0050]-[0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Gordaychik’s victim-aware MU-MIMO/multi-TRP operating technique into time-window EIRP management framework of Katz, which modified by Comsa and Marinier, in order to improve interference management and coordination for victim-side operation in MU-MIMO, multi-TRP deployments while still controlling radiated emissions over time windows.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz (US 20240422699 A1) in view of Comsa (US 20200037254 A1), and in further view of Marinier (US 20200145079 A1), and in further view of Chapman (US 20200021349 A1).
Consider claim 5, as applied to claim 1 above, Katz, as modified by Comsa and Marinier, discloses wherein the one or more processors, to cause the apparatus to transmit in accordance with the first EIRP limit (read as transmission under an EIRP threshold (limit) with a first time interval (“during part of a time window”) in which controller 180 increases power above a threshold, while maintaining time-averaged EIRP compliance for the time window, par [0019]-[0020]) and wherein the one or more processors, to cause the apparatus to transmit in accordance with the second EIRP limit (read as a second time interval (‘during another part of the time window”) where transmission power is decreased/backed off so that the time-averaged EIRP remains within the determined threshold, par [0020]-[0021]) but does not specifically disclose configured to cause the apparatus to transmit a first communication in a first beam direction, wherein the first EIRP limit is associated with the first beam direction, and are configured to cause the apparatus to transmit a second communication in a second set of beam directions, wherein the second EIRP limit is associated with the second set of beam directions.
Nonetheless, Chapman ties EIRP to beam direction by defining EIRP in the direction of the beam and defining a spatial profile as set of EIRP in every direction including the main lobe direction, and if further teaches that scheduling a beam in a particular direction increases EIRP in the beam pointing direction and also in other directions, par [0107] and [0127].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chapman’s directional-EIRP framework into the angle-and-gain-based instantaneous power adjustment of Katz, which modified by Comsa and Marinier, in order to improve Katz’s applicability to beamformed transmission by explicitly structuring the EIRP/power control around a beam direction and a set of beam directions corresponding to a beam’s spatial profile, which would allow the EIRP control decision to be applied and tracked in beam-direction terms consistent with directional beam scheduling.
Consider claim 6, as applied to claim 5 above, Katz, as modified by Comsa and Marinier and Chapman, discloses the claimed invention above but does not specifically disclose wherein the second set of beam directions (claim 5 recites “a second set of beam directions, claim 1 does not) is associated with at least one of: one or more secondary lobes of a multi-beam, one or more side lobes of the multi-beam, or one or more back lobes of the multi-beam
Nonetheless, Marinier further discloses transmission using a set of beams (multi-beam) and that each beam may correspond to pre-coding/co-phase weights (beamforming vector) (par [0040] and [0044]) and describes beam space and a beam’s peak direction with EIRP Peak (figures 3A-3B, par [0042]), which supports associating an EIRP constraint with a beamforming vector corresponding to a peak in beamspace (see figures 3A-3B, par [0040], [0042] and [0044]); and further discloses the transmission using the set of beams (multi-beam) comprising one side lobe, par [0040]-[0042].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the side lobe teachings of Marinier into the beamforming of Katz, which modified by Comsa and Marinier, in order to improve control of radiated emissions and interference associated with non-main-lobe energy by explicitly recognizing and managing beam direction associated with side lobe when applying direction-based transmit control.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Junpeng Chen whose telephone number is (571) 270-1112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., 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, Anthony S Addy can be reached on 571-272-7795. 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).
/Junpeng Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645