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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed on 1/23/2026 have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 form or PTO/SB/08A and 08B forms).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument: The rejection of Applicant’s claims under §101 should be reversed under the first prong of Step 2A of the USTPO guidelines because the claims are not directed to an abstract idea… Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that the amended claims are not directed to a mental process… “claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind”… Claim 8 recites “determining a respective RF exposure characteristic for each antenna when each antenna transmits at a respective test transmit power as part of the MIMO transmission,” which cannot be performed mentally. Instead, the claimed features involve actual RF transmission from each antenna and measurement or characterization of the resulting RF exposure… these operations cannot be practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, as they involve interaction with RF transmission circuitry and measurement or characterization of electromagnetic exposure resulting from MIMO transmission.
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s first argument is not persuasive because the amendment to claim 8 is not given patentable weight. In particular, the language “determining a respective RF exposure characterization for each antenna when each antenna transmits at a respective test transmit power as part of the MIMO transmission” is a contingent limitation that only determines the respective RF exposure on the condition each antenna transmits at a respective test transmit power. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 8, does not require either “determining a respective RF exposure characterization” or “each antenna transmits at a respective test transmit power” (see MPEP 2111.04).
It is suggested to applicant to amend claim 8 with explicit method steps for:
transmitting/transmission at a respective test transmit power; and
determining respective RF exposure characterization for each antenna based on the transmitted respective test transmit power.
It is also noted to the Applicant that the usage of “the MIMO transmission” on line 10 of claim 8, appears to refer back to the same “a MIMO transmission is in compliance with a RF exposure limit” of line 5. However, it is unclear how a resulting MIMO transmission using the determined antenna power limits, can be the same MIMO transmission used in line 10 to determine the RF exposure characterization for determining the same MIMO transmit power limits. See §112 rejection below.
Applicant’s argument: Rejection under §101 should be reversed under the second prong of USPTO step 2A because the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application… Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims provide a clear improvement to the technology itself.
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because there is no practical application. As discussed above, the amendments to the claims recite contingent limitations, and are therefore not given patentable weight, as the broadest reasonable interpretation does not require contingent limitations.
Without the added subject matter from amendments, there is no improvement or practical application. All that remains is “determining… a respective MIMO transmit power limit for each of the plurality of antennas” (a mental process) and “storing indications of the MIMO transmit power limits” (well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing data determined from an abstract idea). These steps are not considered to be significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant’s argument: The rejections under §101 should be reversed under Step 2B because the claims provide an inventive concept… Amended claim 8 recites, in part, determining a respective RF exposure characterization for each antenna when each antenna transmits at a respective test transmit power as part of the MIMO transmission. Applicant submits that the aforementioned features involve actual transmission and characterization of RF exposure behavior – it does not merely collect and analyze data in the abstract, but instead is directed to a specific technological solution for improving wireless device performance while maintaining RF exposure compliance during MIMO transmissions.
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because there is no inventive concept. As discussed above, the amendments to the claims recite contingent limitations, and are therefore not given patentable weight, as the broadest reasonable interpretation does not require contingent limitations. As such, there is no transmission or characterization required by the claim.
The §101 rejection of claims 8-16 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/26/2026, with respect to §102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The §102 rejection of 11/26/2025 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "each antenna transmits at a respective test power as part of the MIMO transmission" in line 10 apparently referring to “a MIMO transmission” as recited in line 5. However, it is unclear how resulting “respective RF exposure level for each of the plurality of antennas used in a MIMO transmission is in compliant with a RF exposure limit” according lines 4-5, when the same “MIMO transmission” is used for “each antenna transmits at a respective test transmit power” in lines 9-10. It appears that the same MIMO transmission is used to determine the transmit power limits and also to use the same transmit power limits to be in compliance with RF exposure limits. The claims are essentially saying the MIMO transmission is used to generate or determine itself. This is unclear and indefinite.
Claims 9-16 are dependent on claim 8, are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
determining, for a multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) configuration of a plurality of antennas, a respective MIMO transmit power limit for each of the plurality of antennas, such that a respective radio frequency (RF) exposure level for each of the plurality of antennas used in a MIMO transmission is in compliance with a radio frequency (RF) exposure limit and respective transmission power levels used for at least two of the plurality of antennas in the MIMO transmission are unequal (mental process for “determining a respective transmit power limit for each of the plurality of antennas”),
wherein determining the respective MIMO transmit power limit for each of the plurality of antennas comprises determining a respective RF exposure characterization for each antenna when each antenna transmits at a respective test transmit power as part of the MIMO transmission (contingent limitation, not given patentable weight); and
storing indications of the MIMO transmit power limits (storing/outputting data is well-understood, routine, conventional, insignificant extra-solution activity).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea of determining MIMO antenna transmit power limits is only combined with storing indications of those limits which is considered to be insignificant post-solution activity of outputting or storing data. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of “storing indications” is a well-understood, routine, conventional computer function.
Dependent claims 9-16 are similarly rejected since they do not resolve the §101 issues of independent claim 8.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14 of copending Application No. 18/362,615 (hereinafter “Liu”) in view of Yavuz et al. (US 2015/0282154, hereinafter “Yavuz”).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of Liu discloses a method for wireless communications by a wireless device (lines 1-2), comprising:
determining a respective multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) transmit power limit for each of a plurality of antennas of the wireless device (lines 6-11); and
transmitting, from each antenna, a signal associated with a MIMO transmission at a respective first transmission power level based on the respective MIMO transmit power limit for the antenna in compliance with a radio frequency (RF) exposure limit (lines 7 and 19-20).
However, Liu does not expressly disclose: wherein the first transmission power level used for a first antenna of the plurality of antennas is different from the first transmission power level used for a second antenna of the plurality of antennas.
Yavuz discloses a MIMO transmission system with a hardware allocation controller 317 that allocates unequal power levels to a plurality of Tx antenna chains 312, in response to determining that the plurality of Tx antenna chains 312 have different power amplifier capabilities to conserve power (para. 0055). Thus, Yavuz suggests unequal power allocation in MIMO transmitters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the application was filed to modify the system of claim 1 of Liu to specify different transmission power for different mimo antennas, since this is suggested by Yavuz for MIMO transmitters and can conserve power.
Regarding Claim 17, claim 14 of Liu discloses an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more memories (line 5); and
one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors cause the apparatus to perform an operation comprising (lines 6-7):
determining a respective multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) transmit power limit for each of a plurality of antennas of the apparatus (lines 6-8); and
transmitting, from each antenna, a signal associated with a MIMO transmission at a respective first transmission power level based on the respective MIMO transmit power limit for the antenna in compliance with a radio frequency (RF) exposure limit (lines 6-8, and 20-21).
However, claim 14 of Liu does not expressly disclose:
the one or more memories collectively storing computer-executable instructions, or that the processors being collectively configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to perform the functions;
wherein the first transmission power level used for a first antenna of the plurality of antennas is different from the first transmission power level used for a second antenna of the plurality of antennas.
Yavuz discloses a MIMO transmission system with a hardware allocation controller 317 that allocates unequal power levels to a plurality of Tx antenna chains 312, in response to determining that the plurality of Tx antenna chains 312 have different power amplifier capabilities to conserve power (para. 0055). Thus, Yavuz suggests unequal power allocation in MIMO transmitters. Yavuz further discloses the apparatus may be implemented as software stored in memory and executed by a processor (para. 0088).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the application was filed to modify the system of claim 14 of Liu to specify using software instructions stored in memory and executed on a processor, and different transmission power for different MIMO antennas, since these are suggested by Yavuz for MIMO transmitters and can conserve power.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 and 18-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gopal et al. (US 2022/0103214) discloses a MIMO system for determining time average power limits for each transmit antenna.
Chen et al. (US 2023/0156612) discloses a MIMO system for determining transmit power limits for each transmit antenna.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID S HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., EST.
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, Hannah Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/David S Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631 8/8/2026
Prosecution Insights