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
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-7, 10-23 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mofidi US 20200187127-A1 in view of Kumar US 20220149880-A1.
Regarding claim 19. Mofidi teaches an apparatus (fig 2) for signal transmission, comprising: a memory (206); and a processor (202) coupled to the memory, the processor being configured to: cause a transceiver (source device 102) to output a first signal (0093) from a transmit chain in a first state (near the body of a user), determine (0013) that a power associated with the first signal violates a spectral mask (ACP standard), and cause the transceiver to output (decrease) a second signal from the transmit chain. Mofidi fails to teach a first and second state. the second state being different from the first state. However, Kumar teaches an exposure manager 413, for detecting and changing the power levels (0106) if the wireless device is close to the ear of the user (first state) or away in a hands-free mode (second state) for spectral efficiency (0116). It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to use Kumar’s teachings in Mofidi in order to conserve power and protect the user.
4. Method claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as apparatus claim 19 since the recited elements would perform the claimed steps.
5. Regarding claim 2. Mofidi teaches (0071) outputting a third signal (retransmission) from the transmit chain in the first state; determining that a power associated with the third signal satisfies (does not violate) the spectral mask; and (continued retransmission) outputting a fourth signal from the transmit chain in the first state in response to the determination of the power associated with the third signal satisfying the spectral mask.
6. Claims 16 and 30 are analyzed the same as claim 3 except it teaches retransmitting at a decreased level if the spectral mask is violated.
7. Regarding claims 3 and 20. Mofidi teaches (0013) obtaining one or more measurements associated with the first signal while outputting the first signal from the transmit chain in the first state, wherein determining that the power associated with the first signal violates the spectral mask (ACP standard) comprises determining that the power associated with the first signal violates (decrease based on threshold) the spectral mask based at least in part on the one or more measurements associated with the first signal.
8. Regarding claim 4. Mofidi teaches (0012) wherein the one or more measurements are in terms of a transmit power control metric or a decibel relative to a peak spectral power of the first signal (ACP standard in (0013).
9. Regarding claims 5 and 21. Mofidi teaches (0015) obtaining the one or more measurements associated with the first signal comprises obtaining the one or more measurements associated with the first signal via a feedback path (reflected) coupling an output of the transmit chain to a receive chain.
10. Regarding claims 6 and 22. Kumar teaches outputting the second signal from the transmit chain in the second state comprises outputting the second signal from the transmit chain in the second state based at least in part on information (near the ear or handsfree in 0052) associated with the second state.
11. Regarding claims 7 and 23. The combination of Mofidi and Kumar teaches the information associated with the second state (hands free) comprises sets of one or more gains (Kumar exposure manager 413) associated with the transmit chain; and each of the sets of one or more gains (Mofidi 0059) is associated with an output power of the transmit chain.
12. Regarding claims 10 and 26. The combination Mofidi and Kumar teaches wherein the information associated with the second state comprises a look-up table of gains (0085 in Mofidi) associated with different components (headset or wireless speaker in Kumar) in the transmit chain.
13. Regarding claim 11. The combination Mofidi and Kumar teach wherein the information associated with the second state (handsfree in Kumar) comprises sets of one or more gains (0085 in Mofidi) associated with the transmit chain, and each of the sets of one or more gains corresponds to a frequency channel (reads on the used channel).
Regarding claim 12. The combination Mofidi and Kumar teach wherein the information associated with the second state comprises sets of one or more gains associated with the transmit chain across multiple frequency channels (reads of frequency offsets in 0067 in Mofidi).
14. Regarding claims 13, 14, 27 and 28. Mofidi teaches (0061) wherein the spectral mask is specified for wireless communications a wireless local area network (BLE) and includes one or more maximum transmit powers across a frequency spectrum (inherent by definition of the spectral mask with respect to government standards).
15. Regarding claims 15 and 29. The combination teaches (Mofidi at 0013), further comprising: obtaining one or more measurements associated with the first signal while outputting the first signal from the transmit chain in a plurality of states (near the ear or handsfree in Kumar), wherein determining that the power associated with the first signal violates the spectral mask (ACP standard) comprises determining, for each of the plurality of states or, whether the power associated with the first signal violates (decrease based on threshold) the spectral mask.
16. Regarding claim 17. Mofidi teaches (retransmission in 0080) wherein determining that the power associated with the third signal violates the spectral mask comprises determining that the power associated with the third signal violates the spectral mask in response to one or more criteria being satisfied (reads on conditions in 0073).
17. Regarding claim 18. Mofidi teaches (0080) wherein the one or more criteria (conditions) are satisfied when an event (reads on ACP standard 0013)) is detected.
Allowable Subject Matter
18. Claims 8, 9, 24 and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 8 and 24. The prior art of record fails to teach or make obvious wherein the information associated with the second state comprises a first set of one or more gains associated with the transmit chain and a second set of one or more gains associated with the transmit chain; the first set of one or more gains corresponds to a first output power of the transmit chain; and the second set of one or more gains corresponds to a second output power of the transmit chain.
Regarding claims 9 and 25. The prior art of record fails to teach or make obvious wherein: each of the sets of one or more gains comprises a plurality of gains, and each of the plurality of gains is associated with a different component in the transmit chain; and outputting the second signal from the transmit chain in the second state comprises applying, to a respective component in the transmit chain, each of the plurality of gains in one of the sets of one or more gains corresponding to the second state.
Response to Arguments
19. Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on the top of page 10 that Kumar’s wireless device in a near-ear position is not a “transmit chain in a first state”. However, in the 103 rejection, Mofidi is relied on for the transmit chain part which determines (0013) that a power associated with the first signal violates a spectral mask (ACP standard) and causes the transceiver to output (decrease) a second signal from the transmit chain. Even broadly, decreasing the power could be considered moving from a first state to a second state. However, Kumar was added to show that its well known to have two different states (one towards the head of the user and one away). Applying that to the Mofidi system, it would follow, that the combination would teach a system that would decrease transmitting power near the head of a user and increase it when in handsfree mode all while monitoring the spectral limits. The applicant is arguing that Kumar fails to teach “the determining” limitation at the bottom of page 10 which again is pointing to the wrong reference relied on, as Mofidi at (0013) teaches such.
As a secondary issue, the applicant’s IDS filed 4/21/26 includes a 103 rejection from the EP of Pesola US 2008/280575 in view of Ying US 2013/107926. Upon review of that rejection, it appears proper. Looking further into the prosecution history, the applicant filed an amendment (a modified version of claim 6) which appears to not only overcome the EP rejection, but overcomes the current rejection of claim 1 in this office action and is reproduced below.
1. A method of signal transmission, comprising:
outputting a first signal from a transmit chain in a first state;
determining that a power associated with the first signal violates a spectral mask; and
outputting a second signal from the transmit chain in a second state in response to the determination, the second state being different from the first state;
wherein outputting the second signal from the transmit chain in the second state comprises outputting the second signal from the transmit chain in the second state based at least in part on stored information associated with the second state.
If the applicant were to make this change to independent claim 1, as well as to independent claim 19, it would overcome all rejections in this office action.
20. 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.
Conclusion
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7499. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th from 530am-330pm and Fri from 530am to 10am.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew D Anderson, can be reached at telephone number 5712724177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/CURTIS A KUNTZ/Primary examiner, Art Unit 2646
