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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8 and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Lan et al. (US 20190356349 A1; hereinafter “LAN”).
Regarding claim 1, LAN teaches a method for controlling operation of a wireless communication device including a plurality of antennas configured to spatially radiate in separate areas (see LAN, fig. 9, antennas 101, 102, para. [0151-152,171]), said method comprising:
alternating selecting of said antennas to transmit a communication signal (see LAN, fig. 5A, S113, S121, switch antennas, para. [0212,223]), said selecting being performed so that an average specific absorption rate generated by each antenna over a given time period is less than a determined threshold (see LAN, fig. 5A, S101, para. [0200], SAR limit), considering a given control distance between the communication device and a human body (see LAN, fig. 5A, S103, para. [0201], detection distance).
Regarding claim 3, LAN teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein an emissive power used by a selected antenna is a maximum emissive power of the wireless communication device (see LAN, fig. 3, 4, para. [0182]).
Regarding claim 4, LAN teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, said method including evaluating a distance between the communication device and the human body, wherein execution of the selecting is consequent on said evaluated distance being less than a given threshold (see LAN, fig. 5A, S103, para. [0201], detection distance).
Regarding claim 5, LAN teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, said method including evaluating an emissive power used by an antenna of the plurality of antennas in use to transmit said communication signal, wherein execution of the selecting is consequent on said evaluated emissive power being greater than a given threshold (see LAN, fig. 5A, S101, para. [0200], SAR limit).
Regarding claim 6, LAN teaches the method as claimed in claim 5, wherein the evaluating the emissive power includes a set of evaluations of the emissive power by respectively considering a set of control distance values, said evaluated emissive power being equivalent to a maximum emissive power obtained from said set of evaluations of the emissive power (see LAN, para. [0229-231], table 1-3).
Regarding claim 7, LAN teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the alternating selecting of the antennas is performed with a fixed periodicity (see LAN, fig. 5a, para. [0228], T1, T2, fixed value).
Regarding claim 8, LAN teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the alternating selecting of the antennas is performed with a dynamic periodicity (see LAN, para. [0190]).
Regarding claim 10, LAN teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein said time period is equal to six minutes (see LAN, para. [0180]).
Regarding claim 11, LAN teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the determined threshold of said average specific absorption rate is equal to 2 W/kg (see LAN, para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 12, LAN teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein a maximum emissive power of the communication device is greater than or equal to 20 mW (see LAN, para. [0187], 22dB, mathematically greater than 20 mW).
Regarding claim 13, LAN teaches a non-transitory computer readable recording medium on which is recorded a computer program which when executed by a processor of a control device configures the control device to method for controlling operation of a wireless communication device including a plurality of antennas configured to spatially radiate in separate areas (see LAN, fig. 9, antennas 101, 102, para. [0151-152,171]), said method comprising:
alternating selecting of said antennas to transmit a communication signal (see LAN, fig. 5A, S113, S121, switch antennas, para. [0212,223]), said selecting being performed so that an average specific absorption rate generated by each antenna over a given time period is less than a determined threshold (see LAN, fig. 5A, S101, para. [0200], SAR limit), considering a given control distance between the communication device and a human body (see LAN, fig. 5A, S103, para. [0201], detection distance).
Regarding claim 14, LAN teaches a control device comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon which when executed by the at least one processor configure the control device to implement a method for controlling operation of a wireless communication device including a plurality of antennas configured to spatially radiate in separate areas (see LAN, fig. 9, antennas 101, 102, para. [0151-152,171]), said method comprising:
alternating selecting of said antennas to transmit a communication signal (see LAN, fig. 5A, S113, S121, switch antennas, para. [0212,223]), said selecting being performed so that an average specific absorption rate generated by each antenna over a given time period is less than a determined threshold (see LAN, fig. 5A, S101, para. [0200], SAR limit), considering a given control distance between the communication device and a human body (see LAN, fig. 5A, S103, para. [0201], detection distance).
Regarding claim 15, LAN teaches a wireless communication device comprising the control device as claimed in claim 14 and the plurality of antennas (see LAN, fig. 2)
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAN as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lu et al. (US 20160174168 A1; hereinafter “LU”).
Regarding claim 2, LAN teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
LAN is silent to teaching that wherein the number of antennas is strictly greater than two.
In the same field of endeavor, LU teaches a method wherein the number of antennas is strictly greater than two (see LU, fig. 4, antennas 1, 2, N-1, N).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of LAN with the teaching of LU in order to avoid unnecessarily transmit power reduction, allow high transmit power and satisfy safety regulations (see LU, para. [0006])
Regarding claim 9. The method as claimed in claim 1.
LAN is silent to teaching that wherein said control distance is zero.
In the same field of endeavor, LU teaches a method wherein said control distance is zero (see LU, para. [0045], zero separation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of LAN with the teaching of LU in order to avoid unnecessarily transmit power reduction, allow high transmit power and satisfy safety regulations (see LU, para. [0006]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that LAN is silent to teaching “said selecting being performed so that an average specific absorption rate generated by each antenna over a given time period is less than a determined threshold”; the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner submits that LAN teaches SAR limit. See LAN, fig. 5A, S101, para. [0200]. Specifically, LAN teaches “RF radiation energy that is absorbed by the human body from the wireless communications device is internationally measured by using a specific absorption rate (Specific Absorption Rate, SAR for short). The SAR measures RF radiation energy absorbed by a substance per unit mass in a unit time, and a unit is watt per kilogram (W/kg)”.
Thus, LAN teaches said selecting being performed so that an average specific absorption rate generated by each antenna over a given time period is less than a determined threshold.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN WU HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7852. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/WEN W HUANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights