Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claims 1, 14 and 19 “determining that the first radio and the second radio are co-located in the device” is new matter. This implies that the device can determine that one of the radio’s is not “in the device” which is inconsistent with the specification which describes only co-located and non co-located antennas in the same device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadakuduti US 20230180150 A1 in view of Lai WO-2022182336-A1.
6. Consider claims 1 and 19. Nadakuduti teaches a device and apparatus (fig 3), comprising: a first radio (802a in fig 8); a second radio (802b in fig 8); and one or more processors (336); and a memory (338) storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause performance of: determining that a first transmission, of the first radio, is transmitted at a first power level greater than zero and less than a first threshold (see limit in 0102), and in response to determining that the first transmission of the first radio is transmitted at a first power level less than the first threshold, causing the second radio to transmit a second transmission at a second power level, wherein the second power level is determined based at least in part on the first power level and the first threshold (from 0102…. if there was unused reserve or margin allocated to a first radio, then past RF exposure of a second radio in the same time window as the first radio could appear to use the unused reserve.….). Nadakuduti fails to teach “determining that the first radio and second radio (i.e. antennas) are co-located in the device. However, from the same field of endeavor Lai teaches such (from 0022… while multiple antennas simultaneously transmitting different radio frequency signals are placed in close proximity to one another and 0023… the processor may determine that a radio frequency exposure of the electronic device is above a threshold. In response to the determination, the processor may output a control signal to the switch to selectively connect the transceiver to the first radiator or the second radiator to reduce the radio frequency exposure…) and which is also applicable to the multiple transceivers of fig 3B. It would have been obvious, before the effective data, to substitute the radio antenna switching taught by Lai in Nadakuduti in order to protect the user.
7. Regarding claims 2 and 20. Nadakuduti teaches wherein the second power level is less than or equal to the sum of the first threshold and a difference between the first threshold and the first power level (in 0102 the unused allocation would be added to the second radio and would not exceed the total reserve sum).
8. Regarding claim 4. Nadakuduti teaches wherein the first power level of the first radio is a time-averaged power level of the first radio (from 0091…the wireless device may transmit a signal with at least one of the radios (e.g., the first radio 802a) at a transmit power determined based at least in part on one or more maximum time-averaged RF exposure limits ....).
9. Regarding claim 5. Nadakuduti teaches wherein the first power level is an increment-average power level of the first radio (reads on time-averaged that complies with the RF exposure limit as stated in (0058).
10. Regarding claim 7. Nadakuduti teaches wherein the first radio comprises a first transmitting antenna, and the second radio comprises a second transmitting antenna, co-located with the first transmitting antenna. (from 0028…. a wireless communication device (e.g., a user equipment) may track the RF exposure per active radio (e.g., a first radio for Long Term Evolution (LTE), a second radio for New Radio (NR), a third radio for Bluetooth, etc….) Note: all in the same device inherently implies the antennas (252a-252r) are co-located.
11. Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al US 2024/0106481 A1 in view of Nadakuduti US 20230180150 A1 further in view of Lai WO-2022182336-A1.
12. Consider claim 14. Kumar teaches a device (120a in fig 2), comprising: a first radio (254a); a second radio (254r); and one or more first processors (280); and a memory (282) storing first instructions which, when executed by the one or more first processors, cause performance of: determining that the first radio is not transmitting or that the first radio is transmitting at a first power level (from 0101…,UE may determine that one of the radios is not utilizing all or at least a threshold amount of the allocated energy…) and in response to the determination, causing the second radio to transmit, within a threshold time period of the determination, a second transmission at a second power level (…. the UE may reallocate the available energy in a stepwise fashion (e.g., step A) at each iteration of action 825 and/or periodically (e.g., following each energy measurement period). …), wherein the second power level is determined based at least in part on a first threshold for transmission by the first radio (…the UE may reallocate the energy until the UE determines that the radio that was not utilizing its allocated energy is utilizing all or at least a threshold amount (e.g., 50%, 60%, 75%, 80%, 90%, 100%, or otherwise) of the energy allocated to the radio….). Kumar fails to explicitly state that the first radio was operating at or near zero. (Note: Kumar examples start at 50% power but easily works at or near zero). However, Nadakuditi, from the same field of endeavor teaches such. (see 0068 where it teaches adjusting the power if one of the receivers are operating in a low power mode over a period of time. It would have been obvious to use the teachings of Nadakuditi in Kumar thus making the overall system more energy efficient. The combination of Kumar in view of Nadakuduti fail to teach Nadakuduti fails to teach “determining that the first radio and second radio (i.e. antennas) are co-located in the device. However, from the same field of endeavor Lai teaches such (from 0022… while multiple antennas simultaneously transmitting different radio frequency signals are placed in close proximity to one another and 0023… the processor may determine that a radio frequency exposure of the electronic device is above a threshold. In response to the determination, the processor may output a control signal to the switch to selectively connect the transceiver to the first radiator or the second radiator to reduce the radio frequency exposure…) and which is also applicable to the multiple transceivers of fig 3B. It would have been obvious, before the effective data, to substitute the radio antenna switching taught by Lai in the combination of Kumar and Nadakuduti in order to protect the user. Note, the addition of “not transmitting” or “near zero” is taught by the allocation of the RF exposure manager 122 in Nadakuduti which can set be set as such.
13. Regarding claim 15. Kumar teaches (at 50%) wherein the second power level is less than or equal to double the first threshold (100%).
14. Regarding claim 16. Kumar teaches (in 1005 setting different threshold amounts in 0100) wherein the second power level (60%) is less than or equal to a sum (100%) of the first threshold (40%) and a second threshold (60%), wherein the second threshold is different than the first threshold.
15. Regarding claim 17. Kumar teaches (fig 2) wherein the first radio (254a) comprises a first transmitting antenna (252a), and the second radio (254r) comprises a second transmitting antenna (252r), co-located with the first transmitting antenna (all part of UE 120a).
16. Regarding 18. Nadakuduti teaches comprising one or more second processors, wherein the memory (both inherent in RF exposure manager 122 in fig 8) further stores second instructions which, when executed by the one or more second processors, cause performance of sending, to the one or more first processors, a message (reads on monitoring the time-averaging window) indicating that the first power level is zero.
17. Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadakuduti US 20230180150 A1 in view of in view of Lai WO-2022182336-A1 further in view of Kumar et al US 2024/0106481 A1.
18. Consider claim 3. Nadakuditi and Lai fails to teach wherein the second power level is less than or equal to the sum of a second threshold and a difference between the first threshold and the first power level, wherein the second threshold is different than the first threshold. However, from the same field of endeavor Kumar teaches such (see analysis to claim 16 above). It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to use the teachings of Kumar’s adjustable thresholds in Nadakuditi in order to make the system more efficient.
19. Regarding claim 6. The combination of Nadakuduti and Lai fails to explicitly state wherein the first threshold is a set fraction of a compliance power limit. However, from the same field of endeavor Kumar teaches such (see 0101 where the percentages are set based on the compliance limit (0102). It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to use the teachings of Kumar in Nadakuditi to conserve power.
20. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chaouki EP-4210227-A1 teaches a proximity sensor for a portable wireless connected device, the sensor being arranged to determine whether a part of a user's body is near the portable connected wireless device, The sensor generates a time-averaged proximity that is asserted when the device is brought near a part of a user's body for a given time and may be periodically reset momentarily during the periods of proximity. An integration time comparable with that used in SAR testing, such that the sensor may be used advantageously to reduce the radio power emitted by a portable device when it is near the body, can be obtained by a sigma/delta modulator configured as rate-compression unit.
HSU ES-2625856-T3 teaches in fig 5B a method of a power control solution for mitigating IDC interference in a wireless communication system 500. The wireless communication system 500 comprises an UE501 and an eNB502. The UE501 comprises multiple radio modules co-located on the same device platform. One of the radio modules is an LTE radio, and the other radio modules may include WiFi / BT / GNSS radios. The UE501 also comprises a central control entity that facilitates the IDC interference mitigation mechanism. In step 510, the UE501 determines an IDC interference condition. The IDC interference condition can be detected by activating the co-located WiFi / BT / GNSS radio, or by receiving signal / traffic information from the co-located WiFi / BT / GNSS radio. In one example, the central control entity may notify the LTE radio after the activation of the WiFi radio.
Conclusion
21. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/CURTIS A KUNTZ/Primary examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights