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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al. (Patent No: KR20210023050A), hereinafter, LEE in view of LUO et al. (Patent No: CN115498394A), hereinafter, LUO.
Regarding Claim 1, LEE teaches,
An electronic device comprising: at least one application processor, comprising processing circuitry; at least one communication processor, comprising processing circuitry, operatively connected to at least one application processor; and at least one grip sensor operatively connected to at least one application processor, memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one application processor and/or at least one communication processor, cause the electronic device to: -Fig. 1, Paragraph [0017, 0033 ] ([0017] recites, “Referring to FIG. 1, in a network environment (100), an electronic device (101) may
communicate with an electronic device (102) through a first network (198) (e.g., a short-range
wireless communication network)…. According to one embodiment, the electronic device (101) may include a processor (120), a memory (130), an input device (150), an audio output device (155), a display device (160), an audio module (170), a sensor module (176), an interface (177), a haptic module (179), a camera module (180), a power management module (188), a battery (189), a communication module (190), a subscriber identification module (196), or an antenna module (197). [0033] recites, “The communication module (190) operates independently of the processor (120) (e.g., application processor) and may include one or more communication processors that support direct (e.g., wired) communication or wireless communication.
and provide, by at least one application processor, information for causing backoff to at least one communication processor, . -Fig. 1; Paragraph [0033, 0140] ( The mentioned paragraphs recite, “The communication module (190) operates independently of the processor (120) (e.g., application processor) and may include one or more communication processors that support direct (e.g., wired) communication or wireless communication…..the electronic device (101) may, in operation 1220, switch
the display (e.g., the display device (160) of FIG. 1) to an off state (or sleep state).
In this case, the SAR backoff function may be enabled.” As explained above, the application process provides information e.g., the state (on/off) related to activate/deactivate SAR backoff function.)
and perform at least one operation for the backoff, based on the reception of the information for causing the backoff. -Paragraph [0064, 0068, 0083, 0132] ( The mentioned paragraphs recite, “The electronic device (101) can control a communication circuit (e.g., a communication
module (190) of FIG. 1) to output a first millimeter wave signal (e.g., a signal (213a) of FIG. 2b) at a first intensity…… According to various embodiments, the electronic device (101) may, at operation 390, output a second millimeter wave signal (e.g., signal (213a) of FIG. 2B) at the determined second intensity…… According to various embodiments, the electronic device (101) may, in response to receiving the electrical signal described above from the grip sensor, execute (e.g., activate) the SAR backoff function…..The SAR backoff function may mean a function of adjusting (or reducing) the output intensity
of at least one of the second millimeter wave signal (e.g., signal (213a) of FIG. 2b) or at least one wireless communication signal so that the sum of the SAR values generated by at least one of the second millimeter wave signal (e.g., signal (213a) of FIG. 2b) or at least one wireless communication signal is less than or equal to a SAR limit value defined in the SAR standard…”
Although implicit, LEE does not explicitly mention,
identify an error related to at least one of the at least one grip sensor;
based on the identification of the error, and receive, by at least one communication processor, the information for causing the backoff;
However, in an analogous invention LUO teaches,
identify an error related to at least one of the at least one grip sensor;
based on the identification of the error, and receive, by at least one communication processor, the information for causing the backoff; -Paragraph [0050], Claim 1 ([0050] recites, “when some or all of the plurality of sensing elements are antenna radiators, the processor 2 can determine that a sensing element failure has occurred when it detects that the reporting frequency of the proximity sensing data exceeds a preset frequency.” Claim 1 recites, “Multiple sensing elements are disposed at different locations in the electronic device, and each sensing element is correspondingly disposed with at least one antenna radiator; The sensing controller is connected to the plurality of sensing elements through multiple detection channels, and each detection channel is connected to at least one sensing element. The processor is configured to, when the proximity sensing module malfunctions, determine the target antenna radiator affected by the malfunction and control the reduction of the operating power of the target antenna radiator to a target operating power.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “ELECTRONIC DEVICE ADJUSTING OUTPUT POWER OF SIGNAL BY USING MILLIMETER WAVE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THEREOF “ proposed by LEE to include the concept of “identify an error related to at least one of the at least one grip sensor; based on the identification of the error, and receive, by at least one communication processor, the information for causing the backoff;” of LUO. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to effectively reducing SAR (Specific Absorption Rate), thus meeting safety requirements and reducing radiation damage to the human body [0065].
Regarding Claim 4, LEE and LUO teach the limitations of Claim 1.
LEE further teaches,
The electronic device of claim 1, further comprising: at least one RF circuit operatively connected to at least one communication processor; and a plurality of antennas connected to the at least one RF circuit, wherein the instructions cause the electronic device to: -Paragraph [0034] ([0034] recites, “In one embodiment, the antenna module may include an antenna comprising a radiator formed of a conductor or conductive pattern formed on a substrate (e.g., a PCB). According to one embodiment, the antenna module (197) may include a plurality of antennas. In this case, at least one antenna suitable for a communication method used in a
communication network, such as the first network (198) or the second network (199), may be
selected from the plurality of antennas, for example, by a communication module (190).
A signal or power may be transmitted or received between the communication module (190)
and an external electronic device via at least one antenna selected above.
In some embodiments, other components (e.g., RFIC) in addition to the radiator may be
formed as part of the antenna module (197).”)
determine, by at least one communication processor, whether transmission antennas selected from the plurality of antennas are equal to at least some of at least one antenna connected to the at least one grip sensor among the plurality of antennas, based on whether the at least one first additional condition is satisfied, as at least a portion of performing the at least one operation for the backoff. -Paragraph [0074, 0083] ([0074] recites, “For example, if the sensor is a grip sensor, acquisition of data exceeding a threshold value may mean that an electrical signal having a strength exceeding a preset value generated according to pressure applied to the housing of the electronic device (101) by a user (e.g., a hand) is received from the grip sensor to a processor (e.g., processor (120) of FIG. 1).” [0083] recites,” the electronic device (101) may, in response to receiving the electrical signal described above from the grip sensor, execute (e.g., activate) the SAR backoff function without outputting the first millimeter wave signal (e.g., signal (213a) of FIG.2B ).”)
Regarding Claim 5, LEE and LUO combination teach the limitations of Claim 1.
LEE further teaches,
The electronic device of claim 1, further comprising:
at least one RF circuit operatively connected to at least one communication processor; and a plurality of antennas connected to the at least one RF circuit, wherein the instructions cause the electronic device to: determine, by at least one communication processor, whether distances between transmission antennas selected from the plurality of antennas and at least some of at least one antenna connected to the at least one grip sensor among the plurality of antennas are within a threshold distance, based on whether the at least one first additional condition is satisfied, as at least a portion of performing the at least one operation for the backoff. -Paragraph [0014, 0056, 0165] ([0165] recites, “the electronic device (e.g., the electronic device (101) of FIG. 1) further includes a proximity sensor (e.g., the sensor module (176) of FIG. 1) operatively connected to at least one processor (e.g., the processor (120) of FIG. 1), and the at least one processor (e.g., the processor (120) of FIG. 1) may be configured to determine a second distance based on proximity data obtained from the proximity sensor (e.g., the sensor module (176) of FIG. 1) and a first reflection signal.” [0014] recites, “An electronic device according to various embodiments may dynamically apply a SAR backoff function according to priority for each communication method. In this case, the millimeter wave signal for detecting the proximity of the user may also be considered when applying the SAR backoff function to comply with the SAR standard.”)
Regarding Claim 8, LEE and LUO teach the limitations of Claim 1.
LEE further teaches,
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the electronic device to provide, by at least one application processor, information for causing the backoff, based on identification of the error and identification of satisfaction of at least one second additional condition, as at least a portion of providing the information for causing backoff to at least one communication processor. -Paragraph [0137] ([0137] recites, “the electronic device (101) may deactivate the SAR backoff function and no longer output the first and second millimeter wave signals (e.g., signal (213a) of FIG. 2b) when it determines that a running application (e.g., the running application of FIG. 8) has been terminated (e.g., use of a wireless communication method being used through the running application has been terminated), an electrical signal having an intensity greater than a preset value is no longer received from a grip sensor (e.g., sensor module (176) of FIG. 1), or a display (e.g., display device (160) of FIG. 1) has been switched from an on state to an off state.” As explained above, SAR backoff function can be deactivated based on the information from a sensor e.g., display and when there is no need for backoff. i.e., requirement is met (satisfied).)
Claim 9 is very similar to Claim 8. The Applicant’s attention is drawn towards Claim 8 above which is rejected. Claim 9 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 10, LEE and LUO teach the limitations of Claim 1.
LEE further teaches,
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the electronic device to determine, by at least one application processor, whether motion sensed through a motion sensor included in the electronic device is not identified based on whether the at least one second additional condition is satisfied, as at least a portion of providing information for causing the backoff to at least one communication processor. -Paragraph [0133, 0136] ([0133] recites, “The electronic device (101) may perform operation 1150 when it is determined that the distance (e.g., the second distance in FIG. 6) between the electronic device (101) and an object (e.g., the object (209) in FIG. 2a) does not increase.” [0136] recites, “According to various embodiments, if it is determined that an object (e.g., object (209) of FIG. 2A) is not located within a first distance (e.g., first distance of FIG. 3), the electronic device (101) may, in operation 1160, deactivate the SAR backoff function. The electronic device (101) may deactivate the SAR backoff function by repeatedly and/or periodically outputting a first millimeter wave signal (e.g., signal (213a) of FIG. 2b) until an object (e.g., object (209) of FIG. 2a) moves within a first distance (e.g., first distance of FIG. 3).” As explained above, it is easily understandable to an ordinary person with the skill in the art that similar to proximity sensor, depending on the output of motion sensor, backoff function can be turned ON/OFF)
Claim 11 is very similar to Claim 10 except Claim 11 talks about touch sensor while Claim 10 talks about the motion sensor, the feature is all the same. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 11 above which is rejected. Claim 11 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 12, LEE and LUO teach the limitations of Claim 1.
LEE does not explicitly teach,
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the electronic device to identify, by at least one application processor, the error, based on reception of information indicating the error from the at least one grip sensor and/or identify the error, based on satisfaction of a condition for determining whether the error is generated, as at least a portion of identifying the error.
However, LUO teaches,
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the electronic device to identify, by at least one application processor, the error, based on reception of information indicating the error from the at least one grip sensor and/or identify the error, based on satisfaction of a condition for determining whether the error is generated, as at least a portion of identifying the error. -Paragraph [0023-0024] ([0023] recites, “the fault occurring in the proximity sensing module 1 includes at least one of a sensing controller fault, a detection channel fault, and a sensing element fault, wherein when the processor 2 determines that a sensing controller fault has occurred, it determines that all antenna radiators 3 are the target antenna radiators affected by the fault. When the processor 2 determines that a detection channel failure has occurred, it determines that the antenna radiator 3 corresponding to at least one sensing element 11 connected to the faulty detection channel 121 is the target antenna radiator 3 affected by the failure. When the processor 2 determines that a fault has occurred in the sensing element 11, it determines that the antenna radiator 3 corresponding to the faulty sensing element 11 is the target antenna radiator 3 affected by the fault.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “ELECTRONIC DEVICE ADJUSTING OUTPUT POWER OF SIGNAL BY USING MILLIMETER WAVE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THEREOF “ proposed by LEE to include the concept of “instructions cause the electronic device to identify, by at least one application processor, the error, based on reception of information indicating the error from the at least one grip sensor and/or identify the error, based on satisfaction of a condition for determining whether the error is generated, as at least a portion of identifying the error.” of LUO. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to effectively reducing SAR (Specific Absorption Rate), thus meeting safety requirements and reducing radiation damage to the human body [0065].
Regarding Claim 13, LEE and LUO teach the limitations of claim 1.
LEE does not explicitly teach,
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the error is identified based on satisfaction of a condition associated with failure of communication between at least one application processor and the at least one grip sensor.
However, LUO teaches,
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the error is identified based on satisfaction of a condition associated with failure of communication between at least one application processor and the at least one grip sensor. -Paragraph [0027] ([0027] recites, “the sensing controller 12 is further configured to periodically report
status information to the processor 2 at each reporting time point according to a preset reporting period, and the processor 2 determines that a sensing controller failure has occurred when it fails to receive the reported status information at least once at a reporting time point. Specifically, the processor 2 can periodically receive the status information reported by the sensor controller at each reporting time point according to a preset reporting cycle; if the processor does not receive the reported status information at least once at a reporting time point, it determines that a sensor controller failure has occurred.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “ELECTRONIC DEVICE ADJUSTING OUTPUT POWER OF SIGNAL BY USING MILLIMETER WAVE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THEREOF “ proposed by LEE to include the concept of “the error is identified based on satisfaction of a condition associated with failure of communication between at least one application processor and the at least one grip sensor” of LUO. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to effectively reducing SAR (Specific Absorption Rate), thus meeting safety requirements and reducing radiation damage to the human body [0065].
Regarding Claim 14, LEE and LUO teach the limitations of claim 1.
LEE does not explicitly teach,
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the error is identified based on satisfaction of a condition associated with mismatch between a sensing result by the at least one grip sensor and an event generation result indicating whether sensing is performed.
However, LUO teaches,
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the error is identified based on satisfaction of a condition associated with mismatch between a sensing result by the at least one grip sensor and an event generation result indicating whether sensing is performed. -Paragraph [0032] ([0032] recites, “The status information includes multiple channel information corresponding to multiple detection channels 121 respectively. Each channel information includes the identity information of the corresponding detection channel 121 and information indicating whether the corresponding detection channel 121 is normal. When the processor 2 receives the status information at the reporting time point, and at least one channel information in the status information indicates that at least one corresponding detection channel 121 is abnormal, it determines that a detection channel failure has occurred and determines that the at least one abnormal detection channel 121 is the detection channel 121 that has failed.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “ELECTRONIC DEVICE ADJUSTING OUTPUT POWER OF SIGNAL BY USING MILLIMETER WAVE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THEREOF “ proposed by LEE to include the concept of “the error is identified based on satisfaction of a condition associated with mismatch between a sensing result by the at least one grip sensor and an event generation result indicating whether sensing is performed” of LUO. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to effectively reducing SAR (Specific Absorption Rate), thus meeting safety requirements and reducing radiation damage to the human body [0065].
Regarding Claim 15, LEE and LUO teach the limitations of claim 1.
LEE does not explicitly teach,
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the error is identified based on satisfaction of a condition associated with provision of power to the at least one grip sensor.
However, LUO teaches,
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the error is identified based on satisfaction of a condition associated with provision of power to the at least one grip sensor. -Paragraph [0049] ([0049] recites, “the processor 2 determines that a sensing element failure has occurred by detecting that the reporting frequency of the proximity sensing data exceeds a preset frequency.” It is easily understandable that the sensing element can be grip sensor and preset frequency is the tolerable or satisfactory level)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “ELECTRONIC DEVICE ADJUSTING OUTPUT POWER OF SIGNAL BY USING MILLIMETER WAVE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THEREOF “ proposed by LEE to include the concept of “the error is identified based on satisfaction of a condition associated with mismatch between a sensing result by the at least one grip sensor and an event generation result indicating whether sensing is performed” of LUO. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to effectively reducing SAR (Specific Absorption Rate), thus meeting safety requirements and reducing radiation damage to the human body [0065].
Regarding Claim 16, LEE and LUO teach the limitations of Claim 1.
LEE further teaches,
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the error is identified based on satisfaction of a condition associated with allocation of firm ware to the at least one grip sensor. -Paragraph [0074] ([0074] recites, “the sensor is a grip sensor, acquisition of data exceeding a threshold value may mean that an electrical signal having a strength exceeding a preset value generated according to pressure applied to the housing of the electronic device (101) by a user (e.g., a hand) is received from the grip sensor to a processor (e.g., processor (120) of FIG. 1).” Firmware can be the processor)
Claim 17 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 1 above which is rejected. Claim 17 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Claim 19 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 8. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 8 above which is rejected. Claim 19 is rejected under the same rational as claim 8.
Claim 20 is essentially the same apparatus claim 1 except a generic error related to a hardware instead of grip sensor as in claim 1. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 1 above which is rejected. Claim 20 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Claims 2-3, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE in view of LUO and further in view of HAIM et al. (Patent No: US 2012/0178494 A1), hereinafter HAIM.
Regarding Claim 2, LEE and LUO teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Although implicit, LEE does not explicitly mention,
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the electronic device to perform, by the at least one communication processor, at least one operation for the backoff, based on identification of the reception of the information for causing the backoff and identification of satisfaction of at least one first additional condition, as at least a portion of performing the at least one operation for the backoff.
However, in an analogous invention HAIM teaches,
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the electronic device to perform, by the at least one communication processor, at least one operation for the backoff, based on identification of the reception of the information for causing the backoff and identification of satisfaction of at least one first additional condition, as at least a portion of performing the at least one operation for the backoff -Paragraph [0068-0072] ([0068-0072] recites, “It is contemplated that additional power backoff to P.sub.CMAX,c may be implemented, for example, to ensure that Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) thresholds or requirements may be met and that transmission thresholds or requirements related to the WTRU 102 simultaneously operating on LTE and other air interfaces, such as 1 xRTT and/or 1xEV-DO, among others, may also be met…. It is contemplated to implement additional power backoff (e.g., due to SAR, 1X (for example 1xRTT or 1xEV-DO) and/or other technologies, among others). Applying, and then sometime later removing, the additional backoff may result in the value of P.sub.CMAX,c changing from time-to-time. It is contemplated to include a new PHR trigger that is based on a change in P.sub.CMAX,c to inform the eNB 140 when the additional backoff changes…..In certain representative embodiments, representative methods and representative procedures may be implemented for handling backoff due to SAR, multi-RAT transmission including 1X (for example 1xRTT or 1xEV-DO) transmission, and/or other reasons not addressed (or impacted) by MPR, A-MPR, and .DELTA.Tc. The backoff may sometimes be referred to herein as non-MPR backoff, power management based backoff, power management backoff, power backoff due to power management, power management power reduction (P-MPR or PMPR), P-MPR backoff, additional power backoff, or additional backoff.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “ELECTRONIC DEVICE ADJUSTING OUTPUT POWER OF SIGNAL BY USING MILLIMETER WAVE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THEREOF “ proposed by LEE to include the concept of “the electronic device to perform, by the at least one communication processor, at least one operation for the backoff, based on identification of the reception of the information for causing the backoff and identification of satisfaction of at least one first additional condition, as at least a portion of performing the at least one operation for the backoff” of HAIM. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order for WTRU to be able to rapid changes to backoff [Abstract].
Regarding Claim 3, LEE and LUO teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Although implicit, LEE does not explicitly mention,
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the electronic device to determine, by the at least one communication processor, whether a current operation band of the electronic device is a band requiring backoff, based on whether the at least one first additional condition is satisfied, as at least a portion of performing the at least one operation for the backoff.
However, in an analogous invention HAIM teaches,
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the electronic device to determine, by the at least one communication processor, whether a current operation band of the electronic device is a band requiring backoff, based on whether the at least one first additional condition is satisfied, as at least a portion of performing the at least one operation for the backoff. -Paragraph [0073, 0077, 0536, 0472-0473] ([0073] recites, “For the case of inter-band carrier aggregation, one or more of the MPR, A-MPR, .DELTA.Tc, and/or additional power backoff may be different for each band (e.g., per frequency band), which may result in reducing or limiting transmit power per band (e.g., the limits or reductions may be different for each frequency band). It is contemplated to have representative methods and representative apparatus for handling maximum power limits per frequency band when a WTRU 102 may be operating in more than one frequency band.”[0536] recites, “The WTRU 102 may calculate the backoff value using one of: a first procedure for an inter-band uplink (UL) transmission or a second procedure for an intra-band UL transmission. For example, the procedures for calculating backoff for inter-band UL transmission by the WTRU 102 may be different from procedures for calculating backoff for intra-band UL transmission.” [0472-0473] recites,” The WTRU 102 may include the P.sub.CMAX in the PHR, which may be in the Extended PHR MAC CE, based on one or more of the following criteria being met (or satisfied). A first criteria may include a configuration criteria, which may be satisfied if the WTRU 102 is configured for inter-band UL (e.g., the WTRU 102 is configured with at least one UL CC in each of at least two bands, for example 800 MHz band and 2.1 GHz band).”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “ELECTRONIC DEVICE ADJUSTING OUTPUT POWER OF SIGNAL BY USING MILLIMETER WAVE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THEREOF “ proposed by LEE to include the concept of “determine, by the at least one communication processor, whether a current operation band of the electronic device is a band requiring backoff, based on whether the at least one first additional condition is satisfied, as at least a portion of performing the at least one operation for the backoff.” of HAIM. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order for WTRU to be able to rapid changes to backoff [Abstract].
Claim 18 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 2. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 2 above which is rejected. Claim 18 is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE in view of LUO and further in view of CHA et al. (Patent No: KR20210020462A), hereinafter CHA.
Regarding Claim 6, LEE and LUO combination teach the limitations of Claim 1.
LEE does not explicitly mention,
The electronic device (of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the electronic device to: identify, by at least one communication processor, generated RF exposure accumulated for a first time period; identify, by at least one communication processor, remaining RF exposure margin for the first time period, based on the accumulated generated RF exposure; and determine, by at least one communication processor, whether RF exposure expected based on the backoff not being performed is larger than the RF exposure margin, based on whether the at least one first additional condition is satisfied.
However, in an analogous invention CHA teaches,
The electronic device (of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the electronic device to: identify, by at least one communication processor, generated RF exposure accumulated for a first time period; identify, by at least one communication processor, remaining RF exposure margin for the first time period, based on the accumulated generated RF exposure; -Paragraph [0057] ([0057] recites, “determine the transmission strength of a communication signal scheduled to be transmitted at the current point in time based on the first SAR accumulation value and the second SAR accumulation value. 405 In operation, the electronic device (101) can transmit a communication signal with the determined transmission strength of the communication signal.”)
and determine, by at least one communication processor, whether RF exposure expected based on the backoff not being performed is larger than the RF exposure margin, based on whether the at least one first additional condition is satisfied. -Paragraph [0057] ([0057] recites, “For example, the electronic device (101) can predict the SAR cumulative value for a specified time period (e.g., 50 seconds) at least one future point in time based on the SAR cumulative value…. if the expected (minimum) SAR accumulation value at least one future point in time exceeds a threshold accumulation value, the electronic device(101) may determine the transmission strength of the communication signal to be transmitted at the current point in time as the backed-off transmission strength. If the expected (minimum) SAR accumulation value at least at one future point in time is less than or equal to the threshold accumulation value, the electronic device (101) can determine the transmission strength of the communication signal to be transmitted at the current point in time as the normal transmission strength.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “ELECTRONIC DEVICE ADJUSTING OUTPUT POWER OF SIGNAL BY USING MILLIMETER WAVE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THEREOF “ proposed by LEE to include the concept of “identify, by at least one communication processor, generated RF exposure accumulated for a first time period; identify, by at least one communication processor, remaining RF exposure margin for the first time period, based on the accumulated generated RF exposure; and determine, by at least one communication processor, whether RF exposure expected based on the backoff not being performed is larger than the RF exposure margin, based on whether the at least one first additional condition is satisfied.” of CHA. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the quality or speed of communication with the second network [0042].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE in view of LUO and further in view of LIN et al. (Patent No: CN115720100A), hereinafter LIN.
Regarding Claim 7, LEE and LUO combination teach the limitations of Claim 1.
LEE does not explicitly teach,
The electronic device of claim 1, further comprising:
at least one RF circuit operatively connected to at least one communication processor;
and a plurality of antennas connected to the at least one RF circuit,
wherein the instructions cause the electronic device to determine, by at least one communication processor, whether an antenna tuning mode for transmission antennas selected from the plurality of antennas is a grip mode, based on whether the at least one first additional condition is satisfied, as at least a portion of performing the at least one operation for the backoff.
However, in an analogous invention LIN teaches,
The electronic device of claim 1, further comprising:
at least one RF circuit operatively connected to at least one communication processor;
and a plurality of antennas connected to the at least one RF circuit,
wherein the instructions cause the electronic device to determine, by at least one communication processor, whether an antenna tuning mode for transmission antennas selected from the plurality of antennas is a grip mode, -Paragraph [0087] ([0087] recites, “the terminal device's settings options include an antenna mode settings
interface, i.e., a mode selection interface, which contains selection buttons for "Performance Mode" and "Health Mode"….users can select "Health Mode" as the antenna mode for the application. However, in another instance, users can also select "Performance Mode" as the application's antenna mode.”)
based on whether the at least one first additional condition is satisfied, as at least a portion of performing the at least one operation for the backoff. -Paragraph [0106, 0111] ([0106] recites, “It is easy to see that "performance" corresponds to the first fallback method mentioned above, and "energy saving" corresponds to the second fallback method mentioned above. As shown in Figure 6, users can select "performance" as the antenna fallback method. However, in another instance, users can also choose the "energy-saving" antenna fallback mode.” [0111] recites, “For example, in locations with good communication capabilities, energy-saving modes can be selected to reduce the impact on human health. In locations with weak communication capabilities, a performance mode can be selected to improve communication performance.” As explained above, energy saving mode can be used in antenna fallback (backoff) mode based on the SAR criteria (impact on human health))
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “ELECTRONIC DEVICE ADJUSTING OUTPUT POWER OF SIGNAL BY USING MILLIMETER WAVE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THEREOF “ proposed by LEE to include the concept of “the instructions cause the electronic device to determine, by at least one communication processor, whether an antenna tuning mode for transmission antennas selected from the plurality of antennas is a grip mode, based on whether the at least one first additional condition is satisfied, as at least a portion of performing the at least one operation for the backoff.” of LIN. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the communication performance of the antennas [0037].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED SAIFUDDIN whose telephone number is (703)756-4581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6:00pm.
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, KHALED M KASSIM can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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.
/AHMED SAIFUDDIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475