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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2, the result of the amendment reads “value is is at least…” therefore an “is” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 11-12, 14-15, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (2023/0029850) hereinafter “Park”, Wang et al. (2021/0136702) hereinafter “Wang”, and Yuan et al. (2023/0035862) hereinafter “Yuan”.
As to claim 1, (Currently Amended) Park discloses An apparatus (UE) comprising at least one processor (16-10) and at least one memory (16-05) including a computer program code, the at least one memory and computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
receive, at a user equipment (UE) comprising a first transmitter (16-00)
Park discloses plural transmission points/panels/beams and provides for an MPR (see [0373], [0374], [0223]) but fails to explicitly recite a second transmitter, wherein a power sharing configuration indicates a power allocation to be applied to the first and second transmitters when a maximum permissible exposure event is detected;
detecting a maximum permissible exposure event associated with at least one of the first transmitter and the second transmitter; and
adjusting the power allocated to the first transmitter and the second transmitter based on the power sharing configuration and the detected maximum permissible exposure event.
In an analogous art, Wang discloses a UE 164 with plural transmitters (as an alternative to a single transmitter operating over plural RATs, [0042]), wherein a power sharing configuration indicates a power allocation to be applied to the first (PLTE) and second (PNR) transmitters when a maximum permissible exposure event is detected (see [0068], [0101]) and adjusting the power allocated to the first transmitter and the second transmitter based on the power sharing configuration (see [0068]). Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park by including a second transmitter and wherein a power sharing configuration indicates a power allocation to be applied to the first and second transmitters and adjusting the power allocated to the first transmitter and the second transmitter based on the power sharing configuration as taught by Wang for the purpose of providing more connection possibilities.
In an analogous art Yuan discloses detecting a maximum permissible exposure event associated with at least one of the first transmitter and the second transmitter; and adjusting the power allocated to the first transmitter and the second transmitter based on the power sharing configuration and the detected maximum permissible exposure event. See [0089].
Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park by detecting a maximum permissible exposure event associated with at least one of the first transmitter and the second transmitter and adjusting the power allocated to the first transmitter and the second transmitter based on the power sharing configuration and the detected maximum permissible exposure event for the purpose of RF exposure compliance.
As to claim 2, (Original) the combination of Park, Wang, and Yuan discloses The apparatus of claim 1, Yuan discloses wherein detecting the maximum permissible exposure event comprises detecting a proximity of human tissue to the transmitter (see [0074]). Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park wherein detecting the maximum permissible exposure event comprises detecting a proximity of human tissue to the transmitter as suggested by Yuan for the purpose of limiting exposure to the human body/tissue.
As to claim 3, (Currently Amended) the combination of Park, Wang, and Yuan discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein adjusting the power allocated comprises decreasing the power allocated to the transmitter with which the maximum permissible exposure event is associated. See Yuan (804).
As to claim 5, (Currently Amended) the combination of Park, Wang, and Yuan discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein adjusting the power allocated comprises increasing the power allocated to at least one transmitter with which the maximum permissible exposure event is not associated. See Yuan (806).
As to claim 11, (Currently Amended) the combination of Park, Wang, and Yuan discloses The apparatus of claim 1, Wang discloses wherein the user equipment has a maximum power threshold, and wherein the sum of the power allocated to the first transmitter (PLTE) and the power allocated to the second transmitter (PNR) cannot exceed the maximum power threshold (total). See [0068]. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park wherein the user equipment has a maximum power threshold (maximum amount / total), and wherein the sum of the power allocated to the first transmitter and the power allocated to the second transmitter cannot exceed the maximum power threshold as taught by Wang for the purpose of achieving dual connectivity power requirements.
As to claim 12, (Currently Amended) the combination of Park, Wang, and Yuan discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus further to:
receive an updated power sharing configuration; and
re-adjusting the power allocated to the first transmitter and the second transmitter based on the updated power sharing configuration. See Park 15-10 and as applied above to the receive and adjust steps of claim 1, since the UEs are configured to perform this every time they receive a configuration.
As to claim 14, (Currently Amended) the combination of Park, Wang, and Yuan discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first transmitter is in communication with a primary cell and the second transmitter is in communication with a secondary cell. See Yuan [0046], Wang [0037].
It is noted that the BRI of the claim 14 is identical to claim 1 since the apparatus is patentably defined by its structure. The limitations were addressed for compact prosecution.
As to claim 22, it is considered that the apparatus of claim 1 corresponds to the method comprising the steps of receiving, detecting, and adjusting as applied above to claim 1.
As to claim 15, (Currently Amended) Park discloses An apparatus (BS) comprising at least one processor (17-10) and at least one memory (17-05) including a computer program code, the at least one memory and computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
Transmit (14-10), to a user equipment (UE) [0374], [0223]) but fails to explicitly recite a second transmitter in the UE, wherein a power sharing configuration indicates a power allocation to be applied to the first and second transmitters when a maximum permissible exposure event is detected.
In an analogous art, Wang discloses a UE 164 with plural transmitters (as an alternative to a single transmitter operating over plural RATs, [0042]), wherein a power sharing configuration indicates a power allocation to be applied to the first (PLTE) and second (PNR) transmitters when a maximum permissible exposure event is detected (see [0068], [0101]) and adjusting the power allocated to the first transmitter and the second transmitter based on the power sharing configuration (see [0068]). Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park by including a second transmitter and wherein a power sharing configuration indicates a power allocation to be applied to the first and second transmitters and adjusting the power allocated to the first transmitter and the second transmitter based on the power sharing configuration as taught by Wang for the purpose of providing more connection possibilities.
In an analogous art Yuan discloses detecting a maximum permissible exposure event associated with at least one of the first transmitter and the second transmitter; and
adjusting the power allocated to the first transmitter and the second transmitter based on the power sharing configuration and the detected maximum permissible exposure event. See [0089]. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park by detecting a maximum permissible exposure event associated with at least one of the first transmitter and the second transmitter and adjusting the power allocated to the first transmitter and the second transmitter based on the power sharing configuration and the detected maximum permissible exposure event for the purpose of RF exposure compliance.
It is noted that the BRI of the claim is limited to the claimed apparatus and does not include the UE with or without plural transmitters which is merely an intended use. All limitations were addressed for compact prosecution.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Wang, and Yuan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishii (2011/0319119).
As to claim 4, (Currently Amended) the combination of Park, Wang, and Yuan discloses The apparatus of claim 1, is silent to yet in an analogous art, Ishii discloses wherein at least one of the power sharing configurations comprises a first difference value (A-MPR) indicating an amount to decrease the power allocated to the transmitter with which the maximum permissible exposure event is associated to when the maximum permissible exposure event is detected (see Figs 6-8, [0175], etc.). Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park wherein at least one of the power sharing configurations comprises a first difference value indicating an amount to decrease the power allocated to the transmitter with which the maximum permissible exposure event is associated to when the maximum permissible exposure event is detected for the purpose of maintaining compliance to the MPE requirements.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Wang, and Yuan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MolavianJazi et al. (2019/0313348) hereinafter “MolavianJazi”.
As to claim 6, (Currently Amended) the combination of Park, Wang, and Yuan discloses The apparatus of claim 1, is silent to yet in an analogous art MolavianJazi discloses wherein at least one of the power sharing configurations indicates a second difference value indicating an amount to increase the power allocated to the at least one transmitter with which the maximum permissible exposure event is not associated when the maximum permissible exposure event is detected. See [0074] where MolavianJazi discloses the same or different values could be used to increase, according to configuration / desires. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park wherein at least one of the power sharing configurations indicates a second difference value indicating an amount to increase the power allocated to the at least one transmitter with which the maximum permissible exposure event is not associated when the maximum permissible exposure event is detected for the purpose of ease/optimization.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Wang, Yuan, and Ishii as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Ng et al. (2020/0411960) hereinafter “Ng”.
As to claim 7, (Currently Amended) ) the combination of Park, Wang, Yuan, and Ishii disclose The apparatus of claim 4, is silent to yet in an analogous art Ng discloses wherein the first difference value is is at least partially based on a duty cycle of the transmitter with which the maximum permissible exposure event is associated to when the maximum permissible exposure event is detected. See Fig. 5 where Ng teaches that reducing the duty cycle is an alternative MPE countermeasure. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park wherein the first difference value is is at least partially based on a duty cycle of the transmitter with which the maximum permissible exposure event is associated to when the maximum permissible exposure event is detected as taught by Ng for the purpose of selecting an effective known alternative countermeasure.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Wang, and Yuan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ng et al. (2020/0411960) hereinafter “Ng”.
As to claim 8, (Currently Amended) the combination of Park, Wang, and Yuan discloses The apparatus of claim 1, is silent to yet in an analogous art Ng discloses wherein adjusting the power allocated comprises adjusting a duty cycle of the transmitter with which the maximum permissible exposure event is associated. See Fig. 5 where Ng teaches that adjusting the duty cycle is an alternative MPE countermeasure. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park wherein adjusting the power allocated comprises adjusting a duty cycle of the transmitter with which the maximum permissible exposure event is associated as taught by Ng for the purpose of selecting an effective known alternative countermeasure.
As to claim 9, (Currently Amended) the combination of Park, Wang, and Yuan discloses The apparatus of claim 1, Yuan discloses wherein adjusting the power allocated comprises adjusting at least one transmitter with which the maximum permissible exposure event is not associated (see 806) yet fails to explicitly recite adjusting “a duty cycle”.
In an analogous art Ng discloses (Fig.5) that adjusting the duty cycle is an alternative MPE countermeasure. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park wherein adjusting the power allocated comprises adjusting a duty cycle of at least one transmitter with which the maximum permissible exposure event is not associated as taught by Ng for the purpose of selecting an effective known alternative countermeasure.
Claim(s) 10 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Wang, and Yuan as applied to claims 1/15 above, and further in view of LIU et al. (2024/0195479) hereinafter “LIU”.
As to claim 10, (Currently Amended) the combination of Park, Wang, and Yuan discloses The apparatus of claim 1, is silent to yet in an analogous art LIU discloses wherein there are a plurality of maximum permissible exposure event levels, and wherein the power allocation to be applied to the first transmitter and the second transmitter is dependent on the level of the maximum permissible exposure event. See [0016] where LIU states that this has been specified in TS 38.101-2 V16.3.0. and disclosed in Table 3. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park wherein there are a plurality of maximum permissible exposure event levels, and wherein the power allocation to be applied to the first transmitter and the second transmitter is dependent on the level of the maximum permissible exposure event as taught by LIU for the purpose of conforming to the TS specifications thereby improving marketability.
As to claim 16, (Currently Amended) the combination of Park, Wang, and Yuan discloses The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the at least one memory and computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus further to:
determine the plurality of power sharing configurations, wherein the determining comprises determining the power allocation and associating the maximum permissible exposure event with the power allocation. See [0016] where LIU states that this has been specified in TS 38.101-2 V16.3.0. and disclosed in Table 3. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park to determine the plurality of power sharing configurations, wherein the determining comprises determining the power allocation and associating the maximum permissible exposure event with the power allocation as taught by LIU for the purpose of conforming to the TS specifications thereby improving marketability.
As to claim 17, (Currently Amended) the combination of Park, Wang, Yuan, and LIU discloses The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the at least one memory and computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus further to:
receive, from the user equipment, a user equipment capability report, wherein the transmitting the plurality of power sharing configurations is based on the user equipment capability report. See Park (14-00).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Wang, and Yuan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yuan et al. (2023/0065671) hereinafter “Yuan ‘671”
As to claim 13, (Currently Amended) the combination of Park, Wang, and Yuan discloses The apparatus of claim 1, is silent yet in an analogous art Yuan ‘671 discloses wherein the first transmitter is in communication with a source cell and the second transmitter is in communication with a target cell. See [0058]. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park wherein the first transmitter is in communication with a source cell and the second transmitter is in communication with a target cell as taught by Yuan ‘671 for the purpose of undertaking a handoff, something that is fundamental to cellular communication.
It is noted that the BRI of the claim 13 is identical to claim 1 since the apparatus is patentably defined by its structure. The limitations were addressed for compact prosecution.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Wang, and Yuan as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Xiong et al. (2022/0007308) hereinafter “Xiong”.
As to claim 18, (Currently Amended) the combination of Park, Wang, and Yuan discloses The apparatus of claim 15, is silent to yet in an analogous art Xiong discloses wherein transmitting the plurality of power sharing configurations is dependent on a determination of whether at least one uplink slot for a network associated with the first transmitter of the user equipment is the same as or overlaps at least one uplink slot for a network associated with the second transmitter of the user equipment. See [0021] provides for max transmission power in DC based on slot types and [0030]-[0031] provides for two slot types based on overlapping potential. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park wherein transmitting the plurality of power sharing configurations is dependent on a determination of whether at least one uplink slot for a network associated with the first transmitter of the user equipment is the same as or overlaps at least one uplink slot for a network associated with the second transmitter of the user equipment as taught by Xiong for the purpose of accounting for interference.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Wang, and Yuan as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (2022/0361086) hereinafter “Wang ‘086”.
As to claim 19, (Currently Amended) the combination of Park, Wang, and Yuan discloses The apparatus of claim 15, is silent to yet in an analogous art Wang ‘086 discloses wherein the at least one memory and computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus further to:
determine that the user equipment has entered a multi-connectivity mode of operation, where the first transmitter is in communication with a first network node and the second transmitter is in communication with a second network node, wherein the transmitting is performed in response to the determining that the user equipment has entered a multi-connectivity mode of operation. See [0118]. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park to determine that the user equipment has entered a multi-connectivity mode of operation, where the first transmitter is in communication with a first network node and the second transmitter is in communication with a second network node, wherein the transmitting is performed in response to the determining that the user equipment has entered a multi-connectivity mode of operation for the purpose of enhancing connectivity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESTER KINCAID whose telephone number is (571)272-7922. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7-5.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
LESTER G. KINCAID
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2649
/LESTER G KINCAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649