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 INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
See independent claim 29 which includes claim limitations that use the word “means”.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 15-16, 20-22, 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nadakuduti (US 2023/0180150 A1).
As to claim 1, Nadakuduti discloses a method of wireless communication by a wireless device (see figure 8, paragraph [0115]), comprising: obtaining reserve information (see paragraph [0115] which discloses “For example, the wireless device (e.g., the RF exposure manager) may obtain, from each of the radios, a request indicating values for the base reserve, the dynamic reserve, and/or buffer margin for the respective radio”) associated with a plurality of services (see paragraph [0069] which discloses “For example, the multiple dynamic reserves 504 for a particular radio may be associated with different service or traffic types (e.g., control signaling or user traffic), different radio or network conditions, etc.”) allocated to a set of antenna groups, each antenna group of the set of antenna groups being associated with one or more radios corresponding to one or more radio access technologies (RATs) (see paragraphs [0067], [0109], [0113]); determining a reserve for each of the one or more radios, based at least in part on the reserve information (see paragraph [0115] which discloses “The wireless device (e.g., the RF exposure manager) may determine the base reserve, the dynamic reserve”), a set of services of the plurality of services mapped to the radio (see paragraph [0069] which discloses “For example, the multiple dynamic reserves 504 for a particular radio may be associated with different service or traffic types (e.g., control signaling or user traffic), different radio or network conditions, etc.”), and a respective state associated with each of the set of services (see paragraph [0068] which discloses “The base reserve may be set to a minimum value to facilitate wireless communications regardless of whether the respective radio is operating (e.g., active or inactive)”); and transmitting one or more signals for at least one service of the plurality of services using at least one radio of the one or more radios associated with the at least one service and a transmit power determined based at least in part on a radio frequency (RF) exposure limit associated with the at least one radio and the reserve for the at least one radio (see paragraphs [0067], [0069], [0084]).
As to claims 2, 16, Nadakuduti discloses that the reserve information indicates a plurality of minimum service reserves for each of the plurality of services; and each of the plurality of minimum service reserves is associated with a respective antenna group of the set of antenna groups. See paragraph [0068] which discloses “The base reserve may be set to a minimum value to facilitate wireless communications regardless of whether the respective radio is operating (e.g., active or inactive)”. See also paragraph [0069] which discloses “For example, the multiple dynamic reserves 504 for a particular radio may be associated with different service or traffic types (e.g., control signaling or user traffic), different radio or network conditions, etc.”.
As to claims 6, 20, Nadakuduti discloses that the reserve for each of the one or more radios is a minimum level of transmit power (see paragraph [0068]) allocated to the respective radio for a time window associated with the RF exposure limit (see paragraphs [0029], [0068]); and the reserve for each of the one or more radios is determined prior to a start of the time window (see paragraph [0092]).
As to claims 7, 21, Nadakuduti discloses that the reserve information indicates a respective priority for each of the plurality of services. See paragraphs [0097], [0115].
As to claims 8, 22, Nadakuduti discloses determining a priority for each of the one or more radios, based at least in part on the reserve information and the set of services mapped to the radio. See paragraph [0084].
As to claim 15, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above. Nadakuduti further discloses one or more memories 338, one or more processors 336 (see paragraph [0054]).
As to claim 29, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above.
As to claim 30, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above. Nadakuduti further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon executed by one or more processors. See paragraph [0213].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12-14, 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadakuduti (US 2023/0180150 A1).
As to claims 12, 26, Nadakuduti fails to disclose that the at least one service is a single service that is mapped to a single radio of the one or more radios.
As to claims 13, 27, Nadakuduti fails to disclose that the at least one service comprises at least two services mapped to a plurality of the one or more radios.
As to claims 14, 28, Nadakuduti fails to disclose that the at least one service is a single service that is mapped to a plurality of the one or more radios.
Those skilled in the art would recognize that these claimed limitations do not involve any inventive concept. They merely depend on arbitrary mapping one or more services to one or more radios. In addition, the specification of the instant application fails to disclose any unexpected results obtained from the fact that the at least one service is a single service that is mapped to a single radio of the one or more radios as recited in claims 12, 26, the at least one service comprises at least two services mapped to a plurality of the one or more radios as recited in claims 13, 27, the at least one service is a single service that is mapped to a plurality of the one or more radios as recited in claims 14, 28. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nadakuduti as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as improving flexibility on mapping one or more services to one or more radios.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 9-11, 17-19, 23-25 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.
As to claims 3-4, 17-18, the prior art fail to disclose determining the reserve for each of the one or more radios comprises, for each radio: determining a sum of the respective minimum service reserves that are associated with (i) the set of services mapped to the radio and (ii) the antenna group that includes the radio; and determining the reserve for the radio to be equal to the sum of the minimum service reserves.
As to claims 5, 19, the prior art fail to disclose determining the reserve for each of the one or more radios comprises, for a single service of the plurality of services mapped to a first radio of the one or more radios and a second radio of the one or more radios: determining the reserve for the first radio to be equal to a first portion of a respective minimum service reserve for the single service; and determining the reserve for the second radio to be equal to a second portion of the respective minimum service reserve for the single service, wherein the first radio and the second radio are in the same antenna group.
As to claims 9, 23, the prior art fail to disclose that the set of services comprises a single service mapped to a single radio of the one or more radios; and determining the priority for each of the one or more radios comprises determining the priority for the single radio to be equal to the priority of the single service.
As to claims 10, 24, the prior art fail to disclose that the set of services comprises a plurality of services mapped to a single radio of the one or more radios; and determining the priority for each of the one or more radios comprises: determining which of the plurality of services has a highest priority; and determining the priority for the single radio to be equal to the highest priority.
As to claims 11, 25, the prior art fail to disclose that the set of services comprises a single service mapped to a plurality of radios of the one or more radios; and determining the priority for each of the one or more radios comprises determining the priority for each of the radios to be equal to the priority of the single service.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lu (US 2022/0159582 A1); Nadakuduti (US 2022/0116949 A1); Liu (US 2023/0156625 A1); Meshkati (US 2022/0386249 A1) disclose RF exposure compliance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN THANH VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7901. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Jeanette J Parker can be reached at (571) 270-3647. 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.
/NGUYEN T VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights