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
The following non-final office action is in response to application 18/520,881 filed on 11/28/2023. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 11/28/2023 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without measuring signal strength of SSB beams prior to identifying the SSB beam to be measured, which is a critical or essential step to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
With regards to independent claims 1, 9 and 18, an essential step of measuring signal strength of SSB beams prior to identifying the SSB beam to be measured is missing as discussed in [0012, 0035].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or, for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention.
Claim 3 is indefinite as it recites “SIB1”, which is a term that is not disclosed in the instant specification.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, examiner is interpreting SIB1 to mean a range of system information block related to a particular beam.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Claim 1 recites:
A method to perform electromagnetic field (EMF) measurements in a cellular network, the method comprising:
identifying a plurality of base stations in a vicinity of a test device;
identifying a synchronization signal block (SSB) beam to be measured from each base station;
receiving, at the test device, signals from identified SSB beams through respective antenna modules;
digitizing the received signals through a multi-channel analog-digital converter (ADC) of the test device;
and performing the EMF measurements on the digitized signals for the identified SSB beams of respective base stations concurrently.
The bolded language in the claim limitations indicate abstract ideas, and the remaining limitations are considered to be additional elements.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a process claim. Claim 9 is a machine claim. Claim 18 is a machine claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification of the limitations recited in Claim 1 recite at least one judicial exception, that being a mental process (observations/evaluation/judgement/ or opinion) and a mathematical concept (mathematical calculations/relationships/formulas/ or equations).
According to the specification, “identifying a plurality of base stations in a vicinity of a test device” may simply involve a test device identifying base stations in its vicinity [0035] such as elements 308, 312 and 316 in Figure 3B, where base stations are cell sites/towers [0002]. This claim limitation involves a mental step given that a human of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of identifying cell towers within a certain vicinity by observing/evaluating a map, for example. Therefore, this claim limitation falls into the category of mental process.
According to the specification, “identifying a synchronization signal block (SSB) beam to be measured from each base station” involves beam sweeping, where an optimum beam is found during synchronization and from decoding [0031-0032]. By nature, this process of beam sweeping involves mathematical calculations/relationships such as complex weight calculations and directional geometric/trigonometric calculations. Therefore, this claim limitation falls into the category of a mathematical concept.
As for the claim limitation of “digitizing the received signals through a multi-channel analog-digital converter (ADC) of the test device”, the specification does not describe this process in detail. By nature, this digitizing process via multi-channel analog-digital converter (ADC) involves mathematical calculations/relationships such as the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem, quantization and binary arithmetic, matrix operations (digital beamforming), and linearity and statistics. Therefore, this claim limitation falls into the category of a mathematical concept.
Claims 9 and 18 recite similar abstract ideas rejected in the claim 1 analysis.
Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
The additional elements in the preambles of all independent claims are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
Claim 1 recites additional elements:
“receiving, at the test device, signals from identified SSB beams through respective antenna modules”
“performing the EMF measurements on the digitized signals for the identified SSB beams of respective base stations concurrently”
Claim 9 recites the same additional elements as claim 1.
Claim 18 recites similar additional elements such as:
“perform the EMF measurements for the identified SSB beams of respective base stations concurrently by measuring one or more of a minimum EMF, a maximum EMF, or an average EMF”
These claim limitations generically recite collecting/outputting, by sensors/devices/displays, measurement data (all independent claims), which represents the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering/outputting results. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
Claim 18 also recites the additional elements of:
“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and “a processor”.
These additional elements are computer components recited in generality and not meaningful and, therefore, are not qualified as particular machines to indicate a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When re-evaluated under Step 2B, the claim limitations are found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as explained by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a communication network) as referenced by Shah and Aerts.
Therefore, the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claims 9 and 18, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to dependent claims 2-8, 10-17, and 19-20, they provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising abstract idea steps) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without meaningful additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or additional elements that qualify for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
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 1-6, 9, 11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah (US 20230093045 A1).
Regarding Shah claim 1, teaches a method to perform electromagnetic field (EMF) measurements in a cellular network, the method comprising: (ED may include sensing RF energy across an intended transmission band for a period of time…[0038]).
Identifying…base stations…in a vicinity of a test device; (…“access node,” “access point”…may describe equipment that provides the radio baseband functions for data and/or voice connectivity between a network and one or more users. These access nodes… can comprise ground stations (e.g., terrestrial access points) or satellite stations providing coverage within a geographic area (e.g., a cell) [0030]).
identifying a synchronization signal block (SSB) beam to be measured from …base stations; (the method can include actions of measuring a reference signal received power (RSRP) value for each of a plurality of synchronization signal block (SSB) beams from a base station [Abstract]).
receiving, at the test device, signals from identified SSB beams through respective antenna modules; (…RF signals received from antenna array 1011…[0152]).
digitizing the received signals through a multi-channel analog-digital converter (ADC) of the test device; (…the output baseband signals and the input baseband signals may be digital baseband signals. In these alternate embodiments, the RF circuitry 1006 may include analog-to-digital converter (ADC) and digital-to-analog converter (DAC) circuitry and the baseband circuitry 1010 may include a digital baseband interface to communicate with the RF circuitry 1006 [0145]).
and performing the EMF measurements on the digitized signals for the identified SSB beams of…base stations concurrently (…a method for reference signal measurement reporting by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communications system, the method involves: measuring, for each particular beam of a plurality of beams from a base station, a reference signal received power (RSRP) value for one or more reference signals associated with the particular beam, determining that a greatest RSRP value of the measured RSRP values is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold, responsive to the determination, calculating, based at least in part on the measured RSRP values and a horizontal/vertical (H/V) polarization imbalance for each of the plurality of beams, a ranking of the plurality of beams, and reporting at least one of the ranked plurality of beams to the base station [0198]…the UE searches for and measure the beams, maintaining a set of candidate beams. The candidate set of beams may contain beams from multiple cells of the network [0051] where “…access node,” “access point” may describe equipment that provides the radio baseband functions for data and/or voice connectivity between a network and one or more users. These access nodes… can comprise ground stations (e.g., terrestrial access points) or satellite stations providing coverage within a geographic area (e.g., a cell) [0030]).
Shah does not explicitly teach identifying a plurality of base stations, identifying a synchronization signal block (SSB) beam to be measured from each base station, and performing the EMF measurements on the digitized signals for the identified SSB beams of respective base stations concurrently.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shah to identify specific base stations from a plurality of base stations, identify a synchronization signal block (SSB) beam to be measured from each base station, and performing the EMF measurements on the digitized signals for the identified SSB beams of respective base stations concurrently to more accurately attribute exposure to the correct transmitter and to better assess maximum exposure by distinguishing between constant background radiation and dynamic, traffic-dependent beams.
Regarding claim 2, Shah teaches when identifying the SSB beam, specifying a range limited to a downlink location (…downlink scheduling (assigning control and shared channel resource blocks to the UE 101b within a cell) may be performed at any of the RAN nodes 111 based on channel quality information fed back from any of the UEs 101 [0042] where the RSU may also include internal data storage circuitry to store intersection map geometry, traffic statistics, media, as well as applications/software to sense and control ongoing vehicular and pedestrian traffic [0032]…RAN nodes 111 may be or act as RSUs where the RSU may operate on the 5.9 GHz Direct Short Range Communications (DSRC) band to provide very low latency communications required for high speed events… the RSU may operate as a Wi-Fi hotspot (2.4 GHz band) and/or provide connectivity to one or more cellular networks to provide…downlink communications [0032] where the UEs 101 and the RAN nodes 111 communicate data (for example, transmit and receive) data over a licensed medium (also referred to as the “licensed spectrum” and/or the “licensed band”) and an unlicensed shared medium (also referred to as the “unlicensed spectrum” and/or the “unlicensed band”). The licensed spectrum may include channels that operate in the frequency range of approximately 400 MHz to approximately 3.8 GHz, whereas the unlicensed spectrum may include the 5 GHz band [0036]).
Regarding claim 3, the claim limitations are rejected according to the claim 2 analysis wherein the range is specified through SIB1.
Regarding claim 4, Shah teaches wherein identifying the SSB beam further comprises: identifying the SSB beam corresponding to a maximum network traffic throughput (…based on the received reporting, the base station can then switch the UE to a different beam based on the received reporting in order to sustain NR performance. The different beam can be a better beam than the UE was previously using, with a better beam being a beam that has, e.g., a higher RSRP value [0023]…at step 406, the UE performs the default rank/reporting method (e.g., as specified in 3GPP 38.214). However, if the highest SSB RSRP measurement is less than or equal to the predetermined value, the UE moves to step 408. At step 408, the UE sorts and ranks the SSB measurements with respect to RSRP. At step 410, the UE sorts the RSRP measurements based on Rx beam type (e.g., in case it is different from step 408). At step 412, the UE calculates weight based rank for the SSBs as per RSRP and H/V imbalance. At step 414, the UE reports the SSB measurement that has the least H/V imbalance to the base station [0061]).
Regarding claim 5, Shah teaches selecting antenna module band pass filters (BPFs) of the test device based on…frequencies of the identified SSB beams from the plurality of base stations based on the claim 1 analysis as well as (…the mixer circuitry 1006a of the receive signal path may be configured to down-convert RF signals received from the FEM circuitry 1008 based on the synthesized frequency provided by synthesizer circuitry 1006d. The amplifier circuitry 1006b may be configured to amplify the down-converted signals and the filter circuitry 1006c may be a low-pass filter (LPF) or band-pass filter (BPF) [0142] where the antenna array 1011 may be… coupled with the RF circuitry 1006 [0154, Figure 10]).
Shah does not explicitly teach basing the selection off of center frequencies.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shah to base the selection off of center frequencies to enable precise tuning for transmitters and receivers, and ultimately, more precise selecting given that the “center” defines the central, peak-power point within a signal's band.
Regarding claim 6, Shah teaches selecting multi-channel ADC channels of the test device based on…frequencies of the identified SSB beams from the plurality of base stations based on the claim 1 analysis as well as (…the output baseband signals and the input baseband signals may be digital baseband signals. In these alternate embodiments, the RF circuitry 1006 may include analog-to-digital converter (ADC) and digital-to-analog converter (DAC) circuitry and the baseband circuitry 1010 may include a digital baseband interface to communicate with the RF circuitry 1006 [0145]… the licensed spectrum may include channels (connections [0027]) that operate in the frequency range of approximately 400 MHz to approximately 3.8 GHz, whereas the unlicensed spectrum may include the 5 GHz band [0036]).
Shah does not explicitly teach basing the selection off of center frequencies.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shah to base the selection off of center frequencies to enable precise tuning for transmitters and receivers, and ultimately, more precise selecting given that the “center” defines the central, peak-power point within a signal's band.
Regarding claim 9, the claim limitations are rejected according to the claim 1 analysis.
Regarding the processor disclosed in claim 9 (Instructions 1450 may comprise software, a program, an application, an applet, an app, or other executable code for causing at least any of the processors 1410 to perform any one or more of the methodologies discussed herein) [0196]).
Regarding claim 11, Shah teaches wherein the processor is further to: present the EMF measurements through an interactive display of the test device; [Figures 2 and 3] and receive configuration input from a user (…the present disclosure is directed to user equipment that is configured to determine that a highest RSRP value for set of reference signals associated with a plurality of beams from a base station fails to satisfy a predetermined threshold [0023]).
(…the device 800 may include additional elements such as, for example, memory/storage, display, camera, sensor, or input/output (I/O) interface [0099]).
(User interface circuitry 950 includes various input/output (I/O) devices present within, or connected to, the platform 900, and includes one or more user interfaces designed to enable user interaction with the platform 900 and/or peripheral component interfaces designed to enable peripheral component interaction with the platform 900. The user interface circuitry 950 includes input device circuitry and output device circuitry. Input device circuitry includes any physical or virtual means for accepting an input…[0131]).
Regarding claim 14, the claim limitations are rejected according to the claim 4 analysis.
Regarding claim 15, Shah teaches wherein the antenna module comprises an antenna, a low noise amplifier (LNA), and a band pass filter (BPF) (…the mixer circuitry 1006a of the receive signal path may be configured to down-convert RF signals received from the FEM circuitry 1008 based on the synthesized frequency provided by synthesizer circuitry 1006d. The amplifier circuitry 1006b may be configured to amplify the down-converted signals and the filter circuitry 1006c may be a low-pass filter (LPF) or band-pass filter (BPF) [0142] where the antenna array 1011 may be… coupled with the RF circuitry 1006 [0154, Figure 10]).
(The receive signal path of the FEM circuitry 1008 may include an LNA to amplify received RF signals and provide the amplified received RF signals as an output (e.g., to the RF circuitry 1006) [0153]).
Shah does not explicitly teach wherein each antenna module comprises…
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shah to have each antenna module comprising an antenna, a low noise amplifier (LNA), and a band pass filter (BPF) to ensure highest sensitivity, frequency selectivity, and measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 16, Shah teaches wherein the processor is further to select an antenna module based on a…frequency of an identified SSB beam and a …frequency of the BPF of the antenna module based on the claim 5 analysis.
Regarding claim 17, Shah teaches wherein the processor is further to select a channel of the multi-channel ADC based on a center frequency of an identified SSB beam based on the claim 6 analysis.
Claims 7-8 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah in view of Aerts, S.; Deprez, K.; Verloock, L.; Olsen, R.G.; Martens, L.; Tran, P.; Joseph, W. RF-EMF Exposure near 5G NR Small Cells. Sensors 2023, 23, 3145. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23063145
Regarding claim 7, Shah teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein performing the EMF measurements comprises: measuring one or more of a minimum EMF, a maximum EMF, or an average EMF
Aerts teaches (Table 4 lists the minimum (Eavg,min) and worst-case exposure levels (Emax and Eavg,max) [Table 4]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shah in view of Aerts to measure a minimum EMF, a maximum EMF, or an average EMF to better assess, manage and optimize the spatial and temporal variations inherent in beamformed networks.
Regarding claim 8, Shah teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach comparing the EMF measurements to a radiation exposure limit.
Aerts teaches (RF-EMF measurements were performed…and from these measurements, estimates were made of the typical exposures for various cases involving users and non-users. Comparison to the maximum permissible exposure limits issued by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) resulted in maximum exposure ratios of 0.15 (occupational, at 0.5 m) and 0.68 (general public, at 1.3 m) [Abstract]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shah in view of Aerts to compare the EMF measurements to a radiation exposure limit to ensure public and occupational safety.
Regarding claim 18, the claim limitations are rejected according to the claim 1 and 7 analyses.
Regarding claim 19, Shah teaches wherein the executable instructs the processor further to: select antenna module band pass filters (BPFs) of the test device based on center frequencies of SSB beams from the plurality of base stations; and select multi-channel ADC channels of the test device based on center frequencies of SSB beams from the plurality of base stations based on the analyses of claims 1 and 5-6.
Regarding claim 20, the claim limitations are rejected according to the claim 8 analysis.
Claims 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah in view of Aerts further in view of Franci, D.; Coltellacci, S.; Grillo, E.; Pavoncello, S.; Aureli, T.; Cintoli, R.; Migliore, M.D. Experimental Procedure for Fifth Generation (5G) Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Measurement and Maximum Power Extrapolation for Human Exposure Assessment. Environments 2020, 7, 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments7030022
Regarding claim 10, Shah teaches the test device of claim 9 and the processor but does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further to: measure isotropic EMF power from each base station over a predefined time period; and determine accumulated isotropic EMF power for each identified SSB beam
Aerts teaches measuring isotropic EMF power from each base station over a predefined time period; and determining…isotropic EMF power for each identified SSB beam (…each SSB’s power per resource element PRE,SSB can be directly derived from the Pr measured during the SSB transmission [Step 3]… the obtained samples constituted the root-mean-squared (rms) power Pr received during one OFDM symbol and within 1 MHz [Step 3]…at frequencies below 6GHz there can be up to 8 SSBs transmitted consecutively [Step 3]…where Aerts uses a first measurement setup (Figure 1) consisting of a spectrum analyzer (SA) of type Rohde & Schwarz (R&S) (Munich, Germany) FSV30 with a frequency range of 10 Hz to 30 GHz combined with an isotropic tri-axial antenna of type Satimo TSEMF26 (further also called a “probe”) (Microwave Vision Group, Villejust, France) [2.1 Measurement Equipment]… where the measurement data (i.e., the received-power samples) were post-processed to retain only those signals (i.e., samples above the noise floor) that are roughly four Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing (OFDM) symbols long, which is the size of one NR Synchronization Signal Block (SSB) in the time domain [Step 2]).
Franci teaches determining accumulated…EMF power for each identified SSB beam (the demodulation software provides a measurement of the received power level of all the SSBs…and Equation 6 yielding average power across SSB beams where <PSS-Block> is the average detected power of all the SS-Blocks in a burst and PSS-Block|max is the power of the strongest one [Figures 12; TDD 5G Signal (Signal #3 Measurement Procedure)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shah in view of Aerts further in view of Franci to measure isotropic EMF power from each base station over a predefined time period and determine isotropic EMF power for each identified SSB beam to capture the total field strength and prevent underestimation of exposure, which can happen with single-axis measurements if the field doesn't align with the antenna, and to accurately capture complex/reflective fields with a reliable, 360-degree assessment, and to determine which beams provide the highest energy in a specific area, and to also determine accumulated EMF power for each identified SSB beam to evaluate the true, long-term exposure of an individual, rather than just a peak, instantaneous measurement, and to extrapolate the maximum theoretical power in a worst-case scenario, which is crucial for regulatory reporting.
Regarding claim 12, Shah teaches the test device of claim 11, but does not explicitly teach wherein the accumulated isotropic EMF power is displayed on the interactive display as a minimum EMF, a maximum EMF, and an average EMF.
Franci teaches wherein the accumulated…EMF power is displayed on the interactive display as…a maximum EMF, and an average EMF (Figures 9 and 12).
Aerts teaches displaying…isotropic EMF power on the interactive display as a minimum EMF, a maximum EMF, and an average EMF ([Figures 3 and 4]…where Aerts uses a first measurement setup (Figure 1) consisting of a spectrum analyzer (SA) of type Rohde & Schwarz (R&S) (Munich, Germany) FSV30 with a frequency range of 10 Hz to 30 GHz combined with an isotropic tri-axial antenna of type Satimo TSEMF26 (further also called a “probe”) (Microwave Vision Group, Villejust, France) [2.1 Measurement Equipment]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shah in view of Aerts further in view of Franci to display accumulated…EMF power on the interactive display as…a maximum EMF, and an average EMF to provide a comprehensive, real-time understanding of invisible environmental radiation, allowing users to make data-driven decisions to minimize exposure, and to display…isotropic EMF power on the interactive display as a minimum EMF, a maximum EMF, and an average EMF to provide the most accurate picture of exposure rather than just a single direction.
Regarding claim 13, the claim limitations are rejected according to the claim 10 and 12 analysis.
Conclusion
An inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN D COONS whose telephone number is
(571) 272-2698. (via email: logan.coons@uspto.gov “without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via internet e-mail to an internet correspondence” MPEP 502.02 II). The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30am – 6pm ET.
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, SPE Shelby Turner, can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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, 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.
/LOGAN D COONS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857