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 § 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 (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 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) 1, 2, 10-14, 18, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damnjanovic et al. (US 2022/0167131 A1; hereinafter “DAMNJANOVIC”) in view of Eum et al. (US 2014/0141800 A1; hereinafter “EUM”) and AKKARAKARAN (US 2021/0037479; hereinafter “AKKARAKARAN”).
Regarding claim 1, DAMNJANOVIC teaches User equipment (see DAMNJANOVIC, fig. 1, UE 120), comprising:
a receiver (see DAMNJANOVIC, fig. 2, receiver 258, para. [0041]);
a transmitter (see DAMNJANOVIC, fig. 2, transmit 264, para. [0044]); and
processing circuitry (see DAMNJANOVIC, fig. 2, processor 280) configured to:
cause the transmitter to transmit data using a first transmission power based on the user equipment being located within the building (see DAMNJANOVIC, ¶[0069]: "in an indoor communication mode, a transmission power level may be greater than a transmission power level in an outdoor communication mode"); and
cause the transmitter to transmit data using a second transmission power lower than the first transmission power based on the base station being located outside of the building (DAM ¶¶[0069]–[0071]: outdoor mode = lower power).
DAMNJANOVIC is silent to teaching that configured to
receive an indication of whether a base station is located within a building or outside of the building; and
determine whether the user equipment is located within the building or outside of the building based on the base station being located within the building.
In the same field of endeavor, AKKARAKARAN teaches a UE configured to receive an indication of whether a base station is located within a building or outside of the building (AKKARAKARAN, ¶¶[0080]–[0083]: BS communicates indoor/outdoor deployment config to UE via SIB or RRC; ¶[0082]: explicit signaling of deployment config).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of DAMNJANOVIC with the teaching of AKKARAKARAN because AKKARAKARAN's BS deployment signaling via SIB/RRC is a known technique; applying it to DAMNJANOVIC's UE gives it an authoritative, installer-set indoor/outdoor signal that doesn't depend on sensor accuracy.
The combination of DAMNJANOVIC and AKKARAKARAN is silent to teaching that configured to determine whether the user equipment is located within the building or outside of the building based on the base station being located within the building.
In the same field of endeavor, EUM teaches a UE configured to determine whether the user equipment is located within the building or outside of the building based on the base station being located within the building (EUM, ¶¶[0147]–[0149]: controller determines UE is in indoor space if accessed AP is located at indoor space (home/company AP identification)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of DAMNJANOVIC and AKKARAKARAN with the teaching of EUM because a finite set of predictable approaches exists (sensors, network-side determination, AP-location inference); EUM's is the simplest, requires no hardware, and consumes negligible power.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of DAMNJANOVIC, AKKARAKARAN and EUM teaches the user equipment of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the transmitter to be configured to transmit data using a second transmission power lower than the first transmission power based on the user equipment being located outside of the building (see DAMNJANOVIC, para. [0069]).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of DAMNJANOVIC, AKKARAKARAN and EUM teaches the user equipment of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the transmitter to transmit an additional indication to the base station indicating that a maximum transmission power associated with the transmitter is reduced based on the user equipment being located outside of the building (DAMNJANOVIC, ¶¶[0049],[0068],[0089]: UE transmits environmental status indication to BS. Outdoor status implicitly conveys reduced max power per ¶[0069]. Explicit "max power reduced" → obvious under BRI).
Regarding claim 10, DAMNJANOVIC teaches a computer-implemented method (see DAMNJANOVIC, fig. 2, UE 120), comprising:
instructing, via the processing circuitry, a transmitter associated with the user equipment to transmit data using a first transmission power based on the user equipment being located indoors (DAMNJANOVIC, ¶[0069]: indoor mode = higher power); and
instructing, via the processing circuitry, the transmitter to transmit data using a second transmission power lower than the first transmission power based on the base station being located outdoors (DAMNJANOVIC, ¶¶[0069]–[0071]: outdoor = lower power).
DAMNJANOVIC is silent to teaching that comprising
receiving, via processing circuitry associated with user equipment, a first indication that a base station is located indoors;
determining, via the processing circuitry, the user equipment is located indoors based on the first indication that the base station is located indoors; and
receiving, via the processing circuitry, a second indication that the base station is located outdoors.
In the same field of endeavor, AKKARAKARAN teaches a method comprising
receiving, via processing circuitry associated with user equipment, a first indication that a base station is located indoors (AKKARAKARAN, ¶¶[0080]–[0083]: BS communicates indoor deployment config via SIB/RRC Combination); and
receiving, via the processing circuitry, a second indication that the base station is located outdoors (AKKARAKARAN, ¶[0081]: BS may indicate outdoor deployment config to UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of DAMNJANOVIC with the teaching of AKKARAKARAN because AKKARAKARAN's BS deployment signaling via SIB/RRC is a known technique; applying it to DAMNJANOVIC's UE gives it an authoritative, installer-set indoor/outdoor signal that doesn't depend on sensor accuracy.
The combination of DAMNJANOVIC and AKKARAKARAN is silent to teaching that comprising determining, via the processing circuitry, the user equipment is located indoors based on the indication that the base station is located indoors.
In the same field of endeavor, EUM teaches a UE method comprising determining, via the processing circuitry, the user equipment is located indoors based on the indication that the base station is located indoors (EUM, ¶¶[0147]–[0149]: controller determines UE is in indoor space if accessed AP is located at indoor space (home/company AP identification)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of DAMNJANOVIC and AKKARAKARAN with the teaching of EUM because a finite set of predictable approaches exists (sensors, network-side determination, AP-location inference); EUM's is the simplest, requires no hardware, and consumes negligible power.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of DAMNJANOVIC, AKKARAKARAN and EUM teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 10, comprising determining, via the processing circuitry, that the user equipment is located outdoors (see EUM, fig. 13B, S1308; see DAMNJANOVIC, fig. 4, 445, UE transition to outdoor, para. [0070], signal measurements), based on the indication that the base station is located indoors (see EUM, fig. 13A, S1304, AP indoor).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of DAMNJANOVIC, AKKARAKARAN and EUM teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 11, comprising instructing, via the processing circuitry, the transmitter to transmit data using a second transmission power lower than the first transmission power based on the user equipment being located outdoors (see DAMNJANOVIC, para. [0069]; see EUM, fig. 13A, S1304).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of DAMNJANOVIC, AKKARAKARAN and EUM teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 12, comprising instructing, via the processing circuitry, the transmitter to transmit an additional indication to the base station indicating that a maximum transmission power associated with the transmitter is reduced, wherein the second transmission power is associated with the maximum transmission power being reduced (DAMNJANOVIC, ¶¶[0049],[0068],[0089]: UE transmits environmental status indication to BS. Outdoor status implicitly conveys reduced max power per ¶[0069]. Explicit "max power reduced" → obvious under BRI).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of DAMNJANOVIC, AKKARAKARAN and EUM teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 11, comprising determining, via the processing circuitry, whether the user equipment is located indoors or outdoors based on a reception level of a GPS signal associated with the user equipment, receiving Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data indicating presence or absence of one or more walls, detecting an indoor position beacon, ambient light detection, or receiving temperature data via one or more temperature sensors (See DAMNJANOVIC, para. [0061], LiDAR).
Regarding claim 18, DAMNJANOVIC teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that (see DAMNJANOVIC, fig. 2), when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to:
cause a transmitter of the user equipment to transmit data using a first transmission power based on the user equipment being located indoors (DAMNJANOVIC, ¶[0069]: indoor mode = higher power);
cause the transmitter to transmit data using a second transmission power lower than the first transmission power based on the user equipment being located outdoors (DAMNJANOVIC, ¶¶[0069]–[0071]: outdoor = lower); and
cause the transmitter to transmit data using the second transmission power lower than the first transmission power based on the base station being located outdoors (DAMNJANOVIC,¶¶[0069]–[0071]: outdoor = lower).
DAMNJANOVIC is silent to teaching that configured to
receive an indication of whether a base station is located indoors or outdoors; and
determine whether user equipment is located indoors or outdoors based on the base station being located indoors.
In the same field of endeavor, AKKARAKARAN teaches a device configured to receive an indication of whether a base station is located indoors or outdoors (AKKARAKARAN, ¶¶[0080]–[0083]: BS deployment config via SIB/RRC).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of DAMNJANOVIC with the teaching of AKKARAKARAN because AKKARAKARAN's BS deployment signaling via SIB/RRC is a known technique; applying it to DAMNJANOVIC's UE gives it an authoritative, installer-set indoor/outdoor signal that doesn't depend on sensor accuracy.
The combination of DAMNJANOVIC and AKKARAKARAN is silent to teaching that configured to determine whether user equipment is located indoors or outdoors based on the base station being located indoors.
In the same field of endeavor, EUM teaches a UE configured to determine whether user equipment is located indoors or outdoors based on the base station being located indoors (EUM, ¶¶[0147]–[0149]: controller determines UE is in indoor space if accessed AP is located at indoor space (home/company AP identification)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of DAMNJANOVIC and AKKARAKARAN with the teaching of EUM because a finite set of predictable approaches exists (sensors, network-side determination, AP-location inference); EUM's is the simplest, requires no hardware, and consumes negligible power.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of DAMNJANOVIC, AKKARAKARAN and EUM teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processing circuitry to cause the transmitter to transmit data using the second transmission power based on the base station being located outdoors (see DAMNJANOVIC, para. [0069]; see EUM, fig. 13A, S1304).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of DAMNJANOVIC, AKKARAKARAN and EUM teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processing circuitry to cause the transmitter to transmit an additional indication to the base station indicating that a maximum transmission power associated with the transmitter is reduced based on the user equipment being located outdoors (DAMNJANOVIC, ¶¶[0049],[0068],[0089]: UE transmits environmental status indication to BS. Outdoor status implicitly conveys reduced max power per ¶[0069]. Explicit "max power reduced" → obvious under BRI).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAMNJANOVIC, AKKARAKARAN and EUM as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hamabe et al. (US 20100311415 A1; hereinafter “HAMABE”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of DAMNJANOVIC, AKKARAKARAN and EUM teaches the user equipment of claim 2.
The combination of DAMNJANOVIC, AKKARAKARAN and EUM is silent to teaching that wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
receive a reception level of a positioning signal associated with the user equipment; and
determine that the user equipment is located within the building based on the reception level being below a threshold reception level.
In the same field of endeavor, HAMABE teaches a device configured to:
receive a reception level of a positioning signal associated with the user equipment (see HAMABE, fig. 1, GPS 10, UE 3, para. [0082-83]); and
determine that the user equipment is located within the building based on the reception level being below a threshold reception level (see HAMABE, para. [0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of DAMNJANOVIC, AKKARAKARAN and EUM with the teaching of HAMABE in order to optimize radio communication quality with indoor and outdoor environment (see HAMABE, para. [0017-19]).
Claim(s) 5-9, 15-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAMNJANOVIC, AKKARAKARAN and EUM as applied to claims 4, 10, 11, and 18 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20230232329 A1; hereinafter “CHEN”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of DAMNJANOVIC, AKKARAKARAN and EUM teaches the user equipment of claim 4.
The combination of DAMNJANOVIC, AKKARAKARAN and EUM is silent to teaching that wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
receive an instruction from the base station indicating one or more transmission power values associated with transmitting data via an unlicensed frequency band; and
determine whether the base station is located within the building or outside of the building based on the one or more transmission power values.
In the same field of endeavor, CHEN teaches a device configured to
receive an instruction from the base station indicating one or more transmission power values associated with transmitting data (see CHEN, fig. 4, 424, RRC config. Para. [0064], LPI, low power indoor mode, para. [0054]) via an unlicensed frequency band (see CHEN, para. [0025-26]); and
determine whether the base station is located within the building or outside of the building based on the one or more transmission power values (see CHEN, para. [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of DAMNJANOVIC, AKKARAKARAN and EUM with the teaching of CHEN in order to manage UE transmit power and reduce harmful interference (see CHEN, para. [0001,57])
Regarding claim 6, the combination of DAMNJANOVIC, AKKARAKARAN , EUM and CHEN teaches the user equipment of claim 5, wherein the one or more transmission power values comprise the first transmission power, and wherein the first transmission power is associated with the base station being located within the building (see CHEN, para. [0054-56], LPI).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of DAMNJANOVIC, AKKARAKARAN , EUM and CHEN teaches the user equipment of claim 5, wherein the one or more transmission power values comprise the second transmission power, and wherein the second transmission power is associated with the base station being located outside of the building (see CHEN, fig. 5, SP mode 510; para. [0070]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of DAMNJANOVIC, AKKARAKARAN , EUM and CHEN teaches the user equipment of claim 5, comprising memory storing data indicating that the base station is located within the building or located outside of the building for each maximum transmission value of a plurality of maximum transmission values, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: receive the one or more transmission power values; and determine whether the base station is located within the building or located outside of the building based on the data and the one or more transmission power values (see CHEN, para. [0051-52], table 1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of DAMNJANOVIC, AKKARAKARAN , EUM and CHEN teaches the user equipment of claim 5, wherein each transmission power values of the one or more transmission power values comprise a maximum effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) value, an EIRP density value, or both (see CHEN, para. [0051-52], table 1).
Regarding claims 15 and 20, the dependent claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of DAMNJANOVIC, AKKARAKARAN , EUM and CHEN teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the one or more transmission power values are associated with a geographical location of the base station (see DAMNJANOVIC, fig. 3, indoor 304, para. [0053]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of DAMNJANOVIC, AKKARAKARAN , EUM and CHEN teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the one or more transmission power values comprise the first transmission power (see DAMNJANOVIC, para. [0031], CHEN, para. [0051-52], table 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3,5-18,20-22 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20110230226A1; US20080146153A1; US20180242258A1.
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
