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 Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 1 recites, “in order to generate estimated RF exposure;” (lines 6-7). It is suggested to replace it with “in order to generate the estimated RF exposure of the first RF group;” for more clarity. Claims 2-6 are objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Claim 1 recites, “the estimated RF exposure,” (lines 9-10). It is suggested to replace it with “the estimated RF exposure of the first RF group;” for more clarity. Claims 2-6 are objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Claim 1 recites, “in order to generate calculated RF exposure,” (lines 10-11). It is suggested to replace it with “in order to generate the calculated RF exposure of the second RF group,” for more clarity. Claims 2-6 are objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Claim 4 recites, “comprising at least one of a duty cycle of TX, an error vector
magnitude (EVM) of TX, a target power, a throughput, a modulation and coding scheme (MCS), a block error rate (BLER), a resource block (RB), a transmission block size (TBS), and a TX packet error rate (TX PER)” (lines 4-8). It is suggested to replace it with “wherein the one or more TX performance indices comprising at least one of: a duty cycle of TX, an error vector magnitude (EVM) of TX, a target power, a throughput, a modulation and coding scheme (MCS), a block error rate (BLER), a resource block (RB), a transmission block size (TBS), or a TX packet error rate (TX PER)” for more clarity. Claim 10 is objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 4.
Claim 5 recites, “comprising at least one of a duty cycle of RX, a modulation and coding scheme (MCS), a received signal strength indication (RSSI), a reference signal RX power (RSRP), a signal to noise ratio (SNR), a signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR), and an RX packet error rate (RX PER)” (lines 4-8). It is suggested to replace it with “wherein the one or more RX performance indices comprising at least one of: a duty cycle of RX, a modulation and coding scheme (MCS), a received signal strength indication (RSSI), a reference signal RX power (RSRP), a signal to noise ratio (SNR), a signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR), or an RX packet error rate (RX PER)” for more clarity. Claim 11 is objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 5.
Claim 6 recites, “at least one of an antenna, a band, a beam, a technology, a sub-band,
one or more exposure condition indices, a simultaneous transmitted state, a mobile country code (MCC), a mobile network code (MNC), a modulation, a bandwidth, a maximum power reduction (MPR), a path, a duty cycle, and a combination of the band and a subscriber identity module (SIM)” (lines 3-9). It is suggested to replace it with “at least one of: an antenna, a band, a beam, a technology, a sub-band,
one or more exposure condition indices, a simultaneous transmitted state, a mobile country code (MCC), a mobile network code (MNC), a modulation, a bandwidth, a maximum power reduction (MPR), a path, a duty cycle, or a combination of the band and a subscriber identity module (SIM)” for more clarity. Claim 12 is objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 6.
Claims 2-6 and 8-13 are also objected to since they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the objected claims, as set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nad et al (US Publication No. 2022/0070796 A1) in view of Zhou et al (US Publication No. 2021/0297959 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nad discloses, a method for dynamically allocating radio frequency (RF) exposure across multiple RF groups [FIGS. 6-8; their related descriptions; ¶0090-0091 and ¶0107-0111, generating RF exposure distributions (step 802), normalized distributions (step 804), normalized composite map per antenna group (step 806), and total normalized composite map (step 808) for each of M antenna groups; note that the generation of total normalized composite map (step 808) is dynamically performed based on the feedback via updating backoff factor for one or more antenna groups (step 812)], wherein the multiple RF groups comprise a first RF group and a second RF group [FIGS. 6-8; their related descriptions; note that M antenna groups includes first and second antenna groups], and the method comprises:
estimating RF exposure of the first RF group . . . in order to generate estimated RF exposure [FIGS. 6-8; their related descriptions; ¶0109, generating normalized composite map per antenna group (i.e., RF exposure of the first RF group) (step 806); note that the M antenna groups includes first and second antenna groups];
calculating RF exposure of the second RF group according to . . ., the estimated RF exposure, and one or more equations [¶0142, existing regulatory approaches that meet predefined criteria like SAR peak location separation ratio (SPLSR) may be used to determine such mutual exclusivity], in order to generate calculated RF exposure [FIGS. 6-8; their related descriptions; ¶0109, normalized composite map (i.e., RF exposure) for the second antenna group of the M antenna groups is generated (step 808) in a similar way in which the normalized composite map for the first antenna group; further see ¶0110-0112 and ¶0142, the generated normalized composite map for the second antenna group is recalculated by updating backoff factor for the second antenna group (step 812) based on whether the total normalized composite map for the first and second antenna groups (step 810); for example, if M antenna groups consist of the first and second antenna groups, Total normalized composite map (s,x,y,z) = bf1*normalized.composite.map.AG1 (s,x,y,z) + bf2*normalized.composite.map.AG2 (s,x,y,z). Since Total normalized composite map (s,x,y,z) is required to be less than (<) 1.0 (see step 810), the above equation can be rewritten as bf1*normalized.composite.map.AG1 (s,x,y,z) + bf2*normalized.composite.map.AG2 (s,x,y,z) <1.0. Further, with respect to the RF exposure of the second antenna group, the equation can be rewritten as bf2*normalized.composite.map.AG2 (s,x,y,z) (i.e., RF exposure of the second antenna group) < 1.0 - bf1*normalized.composite.map.AG1 (s,x,y,z) (i.e., RF exposure of the first antenna group). Thus, bf2*normalized.composite.map.AG2 (s,x,y,z) (i.e., RF exposure of the second antenna group) is calculated according to the bf1*normalized.composite.map.AG1 (s,x,y,z) (i.e., RF exposure of the first antenna group) and the above equation; further note that if the condition, bf1*normalized.composite.map.AG1 (s,x,y,z) + bf2*normalized.composite.map.AG2 (s,x,y,z) <1.0 is met (see step 810), the final backoff (b2) of the second antenna group is obtained/calculated], wherein the one or more equations are associated with a predetermined regulation [¶0142, existing regulatory approaches that meet predefined criteria like SAR peak location separation ratio (SPLSR) may be used to determine such mutual exclusivity]; and
determining a transmitting (TX) power limit corresponding to the first RF group and a TX power limit corresponding to the second RF group according to the estimated RF exposure and the calculated RF exposure, respectively [FIGS. 6-8; their related descriptions; ¶0112, the final backoff factors for each antenna group may be obtained. The backoff factors may be used for determining transmission power levels for specific antenna groups; note that the final backoff (e.g., bf1 or bf2) for each of the first and second antenna groups is determined such that it meets the equation: bf1*normalized.composite.map.AG1 (s,x,y,z) (i.e., RF exposure of the first antenna group) + bf2*normalized.composite.map.AG2 (s,x,y,z) (i.e., RF exposure of the first antenna group) <1.0; further see ¶0106, the backoff factor bf may be between [0, 1] for each antenna group, such that the maximum permissible transmit power for each antenna group equals the respective backoff factor times the transmit power limit of the antenna group (e.g., bf*Tx_power_limit), where bf=1 represents no backoff, where bf=0.3 signifies to operate the antenna group at 30% of the transmit power limit, and where the transmit power limit may be the maximum transmit power supported by that particular antenna and/or antenna group].
Although Nad discloses, “estimating RF exposure of the first RF group . . . in order to generate estimated RF exposure; calculating RF exposure of the second RF group according to . . ., the estimated RF exposure, and one or more equation”, Nad does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), estimating RF exposure of the first RF group and calculating RF exposure of the second RF group each made according to at least one message for each RF group.
However, Zhou discloses, determining RF exposure of an RF group according to at least one message of the RF group [¶0561, the quantity of exposure instances associated with the first antenna panel may be based on an uplink duty cycle value, a power threshold; and/or a reference signal received power (RSRP) value associated with the first antenna panel associated with the first antenna panel].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Nad with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Zhou to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Zhou into the system of Nad would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling efficient and antenna-panel-specific exposure control, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 2, Nad in view of Zhou discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Nad further discloses, wherein the predetermined regulation is a specific absorption rate to peak location separation ratio (SPLSR) regulation [¶0142, existing regulatory approaches that meet predefined criteria like SAR peak location separation ratio (SPLSR) may be used to determine such mutual exclusivity].
Regarding claim 3, Nad in view of Zhou discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Nad does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Zhou discloses, wherein each of the at least one message of the first RF group and the at least one message of the second RF group comprises one or more TX performance indices [¶0561, the quantity of exposure instances associated with the first antenna panel may be based on an uplink duty cycle value associated with the first antenna panel], one or more receiving (RX) performance indices [¶0561, the quantity of exposure instances associated with the first antenna panel may be based on an a reference signal received power (RSRP) value associated with the first antenna panel associated with the first antenna panel], or one or more configurations [¶0561, the quantity of exposure instances associated with the first antenna panel is determined based on at least one configuration parameter indicating a time window and a threshold associated with the first antenna panel].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Zhou in the system of Nad for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Nad in view of Zhou discloses, the method of claim 3 as set forth above.
Nad does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Zhou discloses, wherein each of the at least one message of the first RF group and the at least one message of the second RF group comprises the one or more TX performance indices, comprising at least one of a duty cycle of TX [¶0561, the quantity of exposure instances associated with the first antenna panel may be based on an uplink duty cycle value associated with the first antenna panel].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Zhou in the system of Nad for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Nad in view of Zhou discloses, the method of claim 3 as set forth above.
Nad does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Zhou discloses, wherein each of the at least one message of the first RF group and the at least one message of the second RF group comprises the one or more RX performance indices, comprising at least one of a reference signal RX power (RSRP) [¶0561, the quantity of exposure instances associated with the first antenna panel may be based on a reference signal received power (RSRP) value associated with the first antenna panel associated with the first antenna panel].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Zhou in the system of Nad for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Nad in view of Zhou discloses, the method of claim 3 as set forth above.
Nad does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Zhou discloses, wherein each of the at least one message of the first RF group and the at least one message of the second RF group comprises the one or more configurations related to at least one of an antenna, a maximum power reduction (MPR), a duty cycle [¶0561, the quantity of exposure instances associated with the first antenna panel is determined based on at least one configuration parameter related to an antenna, a transmission power reduction and a duty cycle associated with the first antenna panel].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Zhou in the system of Nad for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Nad discloses, a control circuit [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0168, a communication device or UE 120 which can be control circuit or includes a processing system 1102/control circuit; further see, controller 336 of FIG. 3], . . . and the control circuit is arranged to interact with the first RF group [see FIG. 3 and ¶0045-0046, the controller 336 interacts with antennas; note that every processor/controller of user equipment interacts with antennas]. Since claim 7 recites similar features to claim 1 without additional features, claim 7 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 4.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 5.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 6.
Regarding claim 13, Nad in view of Zhou discloses, the control circuit of claim 7 as set forth above.
Although Nad discloses, wherein the control circuit [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0168, a communication device or UE 120 which can be control circuit or includes a processing system 1102/control circuit; further see, controller 336 of FIG. 3] is further arranged to estimate RF exposure of the second RF group . . . [FIGS. 6-8; their related descriptions; ¶0109, generating normalized composite map per antenna group (i.e., RF exposure of the second RF group) (step 806); note that the M antenna groups includes first and second antenna groups], for interacting with the first RF group [see FIG. 3 and ¶0045-0046, the controller 336 interacts with antennas; note that every processor/controller of user equipment interacts with antennas], Nad does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Zhou discloses, estimate RF exposure of the second RF group according to the at least one message of the second RF group [¶0561, the quantity of exposure instances associated with the first antenna panel may be based on an uplink duty cycle value, a power threshold; and/or a reference signal received power (RSRP) value associated with the first antenna panel associated with the first antenna panel].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Zhou in the system of Nad for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Meshkati et al (US Publication No. 2022/0330162 A1) [FIG. 9; its related descriptions]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm(M-T).
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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights