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 .
This office action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 12/09/2024. Claims 1 – 20 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "604" and "606" in FIG 6 have both been used to designate “Transmit signaling using the transmit power”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20240430823 (ARPUTHARAJ).
Regarding claim 8, ARPUTHARAJ teaches “A wireless device (any of the radios 450a-d shown in FIG 4 together with the respective inner loop 604 associated with the radios 606 (see paragraph 0073) correspond to “wireless device”) comprising:
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (represented by the functionality of the inner loop 604 shown in FIG 6) and configured to cause the wireless device to:
receive, from a control unit (paragraph 0072: the outer loop 602 may be representative of a centralized RF exposure manager representing recited “a control unit”), an exposure margin (paragraph 0078: the outer loop 602 (“a control unit”) may periodically provide second information 610 to the inner loop(s) 604, where the second information 610 may indicate the transmit power budgets associated with the inner loops 604 (functionally corresponding to “an exposure margin” of instant claim). For example, the outer loop 602 may provide a first transmit power budget to a first inner loop and a second transmit power budget to a second inner loop, where the first transmit power budget and the second transmit power budget are portions of the total transmit power budget distributed among the inner loops 604. Paragraph 0080: A transmit power budget may indicate the maximum allowed time-averaged transmit power that one or more radio(s) can use for a future time interval in compliance with an RF exposure limit.) associated with an exposure state (paragraph 0060: the wireless device may transmit at a power less than or equal to Plimit using a look-up table (comprising one or more values of Plimit depending on an RF exposure scenario). The look-up table may provide one or more values of Plimit depending on the RF exposure scenario (e.g., a device state index corresponding to head exposure, body or torso exposure, extremity or hand exposure, and/or hotspot exposure) encountered by the wireless device. Examples of RF exposure scenarios include cases where the wireless device is emitting RF signals proximate to human tissue, such as a user's head, hand, or body (e.g., torso). Here, an RF exposure scenario corresponds to claimed “an exposure state”), wherein a plurality of wireless devices comprising the wireless device contribute to a radio frequency (RF) exposure for the exposure state (implicit);
determine, based at least in part on the exposure margin, a transmit power (Paragraph 0081: The inner loop 604 may determine a transmit power 612 for the future time interval based at least in part on the transmit power budget (“based at least in part on the exposure margin”)) that satisfies a threshold RF exposure for the exposure state (paragraph 0072: the outer loop 602 and the inner loop(s) 604 control transmit power(s) applied at the radio(s) 606 to be in compliance with an RF exposure limit. Paragraph 0081: Plimit may be selected from a look-up table with various transmit power limits corresponding to various exposure scenarios (e.g., head exposure, body-word exposure, extremity or hand exposure, hotspot exposure, etc.)); and
transmit signaling using the transmit power (paragraph 0097: At block 706, the wireless device may transmit a signal using at least one of the respective first transmit powers associated with the communication links in the time interval.).”
Regarding claim 9, ARPUTHARAJ teaches “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the wireless device to transmit, to the control unit, feedback indicating the transmit power (paragraphs 0073 – 0074: the outer loop 602 (“the control unit”) may periodically receive first information 608 (“feedback”) from the inner loop(s) 604 associated with the radios 606 (i.e. form “the at least one processor”). The first information 608 may include an indication of a transmit power report including past transmit power history or an average transmit power associated with a time interval (“feedback indicating the transmit power”).).”
Regarding claim 10, ARPUTHARAJ teaches “wherein the feedback is transmitted periodically (paragraphs 0073 – 0074: the outer loop 602 may periodically receive first information 608 (“feedback”) from the inner loop(s) 604 associated with the radios 606) or in response to a change in the transmit power exceeding a threshold value corresponding to the threshold RF exposure (Since the claim is written in the alternative form (“A or B”), it is sufficient to meet at least one of the limitations “A” or “B” in the claim. In this case, the limitation “A” is met.).”
Regarding claim 11, ARPUTHARAJ teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the wireless device to: determine a device type of the wireless device (paragraph 0104: The operations 800 may begin, at block 802, where the wireless device may obtain an indication that a particular service is active. The service may be or include a multi-link service. The indication may include an identifier associated with the service to uniquely identify the service. Paragraph 0065: A wireless device may detect that a particular multi-link service, such as XPAN, is active. As per paragraph 0026, XPAN is an extended personal audio network comprising Bluetooth and WLAN radios. Thus, determination that XPAN service is active means that Bluetooth type radio and WLAN type radio are active which corresponds to the claimed “determine a device type of the respective wireless devices”); and transmit the device type to the control unit (paragraph 0076: the outer loop 602 may distribute the total transmit power budget into at least a first transmit power budget for WLAN communications (representing the first radio) and a second transmit power budget for Bluetooth communications (representing the second radio). Also see paragraph 0077. In other words, in order to implement ARPUTHARAJ’s teachings as disclosed, which is to allocate transmit power budget based on the type of radio being actively utilized, it is inherent that the outer loop 602 must necessarily know which radio out of the plurality of radios is active, thus mapping to the limitation “transmit the device type to the control unit” which is the outer loop 602.).”
Regarding claim 12, ARPUTHARAJ teaches “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the wireless device to: detect a change in an operating state of the wireless device; and transmit an indication of the change in the operating state to the control unit (paragraph 0073: the outer loop 602 (“the control unit”) may obtain the first information 608 in response to certain criteria (e.g., a triggering event including a change in channel conditions, quality of service (QOS), etc.). These changes represent “a change in an operating state of the wireless device”, and transmission of the first information 608 by the inner loop 604 (“the at least one processor”) represents transmission of at least implicit “indication of the change in the operating state”. Paragraph 0101: The wireless device may update the distribution of the transmit power budget in response to detecting a change, for example, from transmitting via a first communication link to transmitting via a second communication link. This change also represents “a change in an operating state of the wireless device” and update in the distribution of the transmit power budget by the outer loop 602 is performed in response to receiving first information 608 representing “an indication of the change in the operating state”).”
Regarding claim 13, ARPUTHARAJ teaches “wherein the change in the operating state comprises at least one of activation or deactivation of a wireless communication technology at the wireless device (Paragraph 0101: The wireless device may update the distribution of the transmit power budget in response to detecting a change, for example, from transmitting via a first communication link to transmitting via a second communication link. The links corresponds to XPAN technology (Bluetooth) and infrastructure technology (WLAN), therefore, switching from one link to another is “change in the operating state” representing “activation or deactivation of a wireless communication technology at the wireless device”), a change in proximity of the wireless device to a user, or a change in orientation of the wireless device relative to the user (Since the claim is written in the alternative form (“A or B or C”), it is sufficient to meet at least one of the limitations “A” or “B” or “C” in the claim. In this case, the limitation “A” is met.).”
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.
Claims 1 – 7 and 14 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240214953 (NADAKUDUT’953) in view of US 20240430823 (ARPUTHARAJ).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, NADAKUDUT’953 teaches “A control unit (Par. 0033: As shown in FIG. 1, the UE 120a includes an RF exposure manager 122 that ensures RF exposure compliance across multiple radios. Par. 0069 and FIG 5: an RF exposure manager 510), comprising:
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (Par. 0044: controller/processor 280. Presence of memory is implicit) and configured to cause the control unit to…”
“…a plurality of wireless devices associated with an exposure state are active (“plurality of wireless devices” are mapped to shown in FIG 5 radios 502a-d. Par. 0025: a wireless device may be equipped with multiple radios for wireless communications for simultaneous or concurrent transmissions. Multi-radio scenarios, where a transmission scenario may correspond to one or more radios (i.e. plural radios). Exposure scenarios (each of which corresponding to the recited “an exposure state”) (e.g., head exposure, extremity exposure, body exposure, or hot spot exposure) used for transmission(s) in a time interval. Paragraph 0071: The radios may be transmitting in the same time period such that the evaluation for RF exposure compliance accounts for the transmission activity of both radios.), wherein the plurality of wireless devices contribute to a radio frequency (RF) exposure for the exposure state (implicit); and
transmit, to respective wireless devices of the plurality of wireless devices…” [transmit power] “…associated with the exposure state (with respect to two radios, paragraph 0073: The RF exposure manager may determine an exposure margin associated with the second radio based on the normalized exposure associated with the first radio, where the exposure margin is the remaining exposure available to the second radio. Paragraph 0074: The RF exposure manager may determine the maximum allowable instantaneous transmit power associated with the second radio based on the exposure margin. Paragraph 0075: The RF exposure manager may provide the maximum allowable instantaneous transmit power determined for the second time interval to the RF circuitry associated with the second radio. Similarly, management of three radios is disclosed in FIG 7 with corresponding description. With respect to the exposure margins being “associated with the exposure states”, see paragraph 0071: the RF exposure manager may select the maximum allowable transmit power (Plimit) associated with the current transmission scenario (which includes exposure scenario, mapped to the “exposure state”, as explained above); paragraph 0074: while calculating the maximum allowable instantaneous transmit power associated with the second radio based on the exposure margin, the formula uses the value for Plimit_sec (the maximum allowable transmit power associated with the second radio) for the current transmit scenario (including exposure scenario). Paragraph 0077: The RF exposure management described may allow the wireless device to store a maximum allowable transmit power (Plimit) for various transmission scenarios per radio (including exposure scenario.)), wherein a transmit power of the respective wireless devices satisfies a threshold RF exposure for the exposure state (paragraph 0075: The sum of the normalized exposure associated with the first radio in the first time interval 602 and the normalized exposure associated with the second radio in the second time interval 606 satisfies an RF exposure limit (e.g., a normalized limit of one). Since the transmit power for each radio is thus based on the normalized exposures for the respective radios, this condition is also satisfied for the transmit powers of the respective radios) based at least in part on the exposure margin (these calculations of the transmit powers are based on respective “exposure margins” as explained above).”
While teaching plurality of radios being active simultaneously, NADAKUDUT’953 does not disclose “obtain an indication that” the plurality of radios are active, as well as transmission of “an exposure margin” to each individual radio. In NADAKUDUT’953, what is transmitted is the actual transmission power level at which the respective radio is to transmit.
In similar art, ARPUTHARAJ also teaches distributing a transmit power budget for a multi-link service in compliance with a radio frequency (RF) exposure limit (see abstract). As further stated in paragraph 0032, to ensure the human 108 is not overexposed to RF emissions from the wireless device 102, the wireless device 102 may control the transmit power associated with the RF signals in accordance with an RF exposure limit, where the RF exposure limit may depend on corresponding exposure scenario (e.g., head exposure, extremity (e.g., hand) exposure, body (body-worn) exposure, hotspot exposure, etc.), corresponding to the recited “exposure state”.
Particularly, paragraph 0072: FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating a logical architecture 600 for controlling the transmit power (and hence, the RF exposure) associated with plurality of radios 606 (e.g., the radio(s) 450a-d) of a wireless device. The outer loop 602 may be representative of a centralized RF exposure manager (corresponding to NADAKUDUT’953’s RF exposure manager 510 and “control unit” of instant claim), and the inner loop(s) may be representative of transmit power manager(s) associated with the radio(s) 606. Paragraph 0073: the outer loop 602 operates as a centralized controller that controls the RF exposure associated with the radios 606. The outer loop 602 may determine the maximum allowed transmit powers that can be used for a future time interval based on the past transmit powers associated with all of the radios 606 that are actively transmitting. The outer loop 602 may periodically receive first information 608 from the inner loop(s) 604 associated with the radios 606. Paragraph 0074, 0076 and 0104: The first information 608 may include a multi-link service indication. To efficiently allocate the transmit power budget among the radios 606 in a multi-link service scenario such as XPAN, the inner loop 604 may indicate (via the first information 608) to the outer loop 602 that the multi-link service is active and request to readjust the transmit power budget among the radios 606. The operations 800 may begin, at block 802, where the wireless device may obtain an indication that a particular service is active. The service may be or include a multi-link service. This corresponds to the claimed “obtain an indication that a plurality of wireless devices associated with an exposure state are active”.
Next, as stated in paragraph 0078, the outer loop 602 may periodically provide second information 610 to the inner loop(s) 604, where the second information 610 may indicate the transmit power budgets associated with the inner loops 604. For example, the outer loop 602 may provide a first transmit power budget to a first inner loop and a second transmit power budget to a second inner loop, where the first transmit power budget and the second transmit power budget are portions of the total transmit power budget distributed among the inner loops 604. Paragraph 0080: A transmit power budget may indicate the maximum allowed time-averaged transmit power that one or more radio(s) can use for a future time interval in compliance with an RF exposure limit. Thus, in ARPUTHARAJ , the transmit power budget corresponds to the claimed “exposure margin”. Paragraph 0081: The inner loop 604 may determine a transmit power 612 for the future time interval based at least in part on the transmit power budget (based on “exposure margin”).
In other words, in the system of NADAKUDUT’953, the RF exposure manager determines exposure margins and based on that, determines transmit power that is further sent to each individual radio. In contrast, in ARPUTHARAJ, the outer loop 602 representing a centralized RF exposure manager, determines the transmit power budget per radio (“exposure margin”) and sends it to each of the inner loops associated with individual radios which determine respective transmit power. This corresponds to the claimed “transmit, to respective wireless devices of the plurality of wireless devices, an exposure margin”. So the difference between the references is which information is transmitted to the individual radios and which portion of the system determines respective transmit power for the radio.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by ARPUTHARAJ in FIG 6 with corresponding description logical architecture for controlling the transmit power (and hence, the RF exposure) associated with one or more radios, in the system of NADAKUDUT’953 simply as design choice with predictable results, the results being exact place where the transmit power of each individual radio is determined. This would have been simply a mere and an obvious replacement of one logical structure with another since the court stated in KSR, "when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50-51 (1966)).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, NADAKUDUT’953 in combination with ARPUTHARAJ teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the control unit to:
receive, from at least one wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices, feedback indicating the transmit power (NADAKUDUT’953, paragraph 0071: The RF exposure manager may obtain, from the first radio, a transmit power report associated with the first radio for the first time interval 602. The transmit power report may include (or indicate) the transmit power(s) 604 used by the first radio in the first time interval 602. ARPUTHARAJ, paragraphs 0073 – 0074: the outer loop 602 may periodically receive first information 608 from the inner loop(s) 604 associated with the radios 606. The first information 608 may include an indication of a transmit power report including past transmit power history or an average transmit power associated with a time interval (“feedback indicating the transmit power”).); and
transmit, to the respective wireless devices of the plurality of wireless devices, an updated exposure margin associated with the exposure state based at least in part on the feedback (ARPUTHARAJ, paragraph 0075: The outer loop 602 may determine separate transmit power budgets (corresponds to the claimed “exposure margin”. Being “associated with the exposure state” is implicit) for the inner loops 604 based on the first information 608 (“based at least in part on feedback”). Paragraph 0078: the outer loop 602 may periodically provide second information 610 to the inner loop(s) 604, where the second information 610 may indicate the transmit power budgets associated with the inner loops 604.).”
Regarding claims 3 and 16, NADAKUDUT’953 in combination with ARPUTHARAJ teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the control unit to determine a device type of the respective wireless devices (ARPUTHARAJ, paragraph 0104: The operations 800 may begin, at block 802, where the wireless device may obtain an indication that a particular service is active. The service may be or include a multi-link service. The indication may include an identifier associated with the service to uniquely identify the service. Paragraph 0065: A wireless device may detect that a particular multi-link service, such as XPAN, is active. As per paragraph 0026, XPAN is an extended personal audio network comprising Bluetooth and WLAN radios. Thus, determination that XPAN service is active means that Bluetooth type radio and WLAN type radio are active which corresponds to the claimed “determine a device type of the respective wireless devices”), wherein the exposure margin is based at least in part on the device type of the respective wireless devices (ARPUTHARAJ, paragraph 0076: the outer loop 602 may distribute the total transmit power budget into at least a first transmit power budget for WLAN communications (representing “the exposure margin” for the first radio) and a second transmit power budget for Bluetooth communications (representing “the exposure margin” for the second radio). Thus, since the types of the radios are different (Bluetooth versus WLAN), this distribution of the transmit power budgets is “based at least in part on the device type”. Also see paragraph 0077. Additionally, in order to implement ARPUTHARAJ’s teachings as disclosed, which is to allocate transmit power budget based on the type of radio being actively utilized, it is inherent that the device must necessarily know which radio out of the plurality of radios is active, thus also mapping to the limitation “determine a device type of the respective wireless devices”.
With respect to NADAKUDUT’953, paragraph 0067, the wireless device may first determine one radio's RF exposure and corresponding transmit power associated with a first time interval (e.g., the one radio being a higher priority or primary radio), and any remaining available RF exposure can be used for another radio (e.g., a lower priority or secondary radio). Here, a determination is made that the first radio is a high priority type radio and the second radio is a lower priority type radio (corresponding to the claimed “determine a device type of the respective wireless devices”), and the respective radio’s RF exposure (corresponding to the claimed “the exposure margin”) is determined based on the type of the radio (“based at least in part on the device type of the respective wireless devices”)).”
Regarding claims 4 and 17, NADAKUDUT’953 in combination with ARPUTHARAJ do not explicitly teach “detect a change in a numerical quantity of the plurality of wireless devices contributing to the RF exposure for the exposure state; and
transmit, to the respective wireless devices of the plurality of wireless devices, an updated exposure margin associated with the exposure state based at least in part on the change.”
However, NADAKUDUT’953 in FIG 5 shows presence of four different radios in the device. Paragraphs 0071 – 0083 disclose RF exposure management for two radios so that the combined transmission power of both radios do not exceed the RF exposure limit. In the process, all calculations of exposure margins and transmission powers to be sent to individual radios are performed for two radios. Further, paragraphs 0083 – 0089 disclose RF exposure management for three radios so that the combined transmission power of all radios do not exceed the RF exposure limit. In the process, all calculations of exposure margins and transmission powers to be sent to individual radios are performed for three radios. Lastly, paragraphs 0096 – 0110 disclose RF exposure management for N radios so that the combined transmission power of all radios do not exceed the RF exposure limit. In the process, all calculations of exposure margins and transmission powers to be sent to individual radios are performed for N radios.
Comparing three different scenarios depending on the number of active radios, it may clearly be seen that the exposure margins and transmission powers allocated to each radio in each scenario differs depending on the number of active radios. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that for a multi-radio device, if the number of active radios change from two to three to four radios, to recalculate the RF exposure margins and respective transmission powers for each individual radio depending on the number of radios currently being active, thus necessitating determination “a change in a numerical quantity of the plurality of wireless devices contributing to the RF exposure for the exposure state.” Doing so would have allowed to effectively control the RF exposure not to exceed the limit regardless of the number of active radios.
With respect to ARPUTHARAJ, paragraph 0078: In certain cases, a subset of the inner loops 604 may be assigned transmit power budgets, for example, when certain radio(s) are disabled or inactive (e.g., in an idle mode or sleep mode) and not expected to communicate in the respective time interval. In such cases, the outer loop 602 may provide the second information 610 to only a subset of the inner loops 604 that are actively transmitting in the time interval. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that transmission of transmit power budgets only to a subset of the inner loops 604 while the rest of them are disabled or inactive means that there was a determination made that “a change in a numerical quantity of the plurality of wireless devices contributing to the RF exposure for the exposure state” had taken place so that the transmit power budgets may only be supplied to the active devices (“transmit, to the respective wireless devices of the plurality of wireless devices, an updated exposure margin associated with the exposure state based at least in part on the change.”)
Regarding claims 5 and 18, NADAKUDUT’953 in combination with ARPUTHARAJ teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the control unit is integrated into a wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices (ARPUTHARAJ, paragraph 0072: the outer loop 602 (“the control unit”) may be representative of a centralized RF exposure manager. The inner loop(s) may be representative of transmit power manager(s) associated with the radio(s) 606. In some cases, the outer loop 602 and inner loop 604 may be implemented in the same modem and/or processor. Thus, ARPUTHARAJ does not place any restrictions on the architecture of the device and particular position of the outer loop 602. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to optionally structurally combine the outer loop 602 with any of the inner loops 602 associated with a particular radio since it has been held that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).).”
Regarding claims 6 and 19, NADAKUDUT’953 and ARPUTHARAJ teach “wherein the control unit is independent of the plurality of wireless devices (NADAKUDUT’953, FIG 5 shows the RF exposure manager 510 (“the control unit”) as being separate and independent of the radios 502a-d. Similarly, ARPUTHARAJ, FIG 6 and paragraph 0072: the outer loop 602 (“the control unit”) may be representative of a centralized RF exposure manager. As an example, the outer loop 602 may be implemented in a WWAN modem, and at least one of the inner loops 604 may be implemented in a WLAN modem or a multi-RAT modem (e.g., a modem configured to perform WLAN and Bluetooth communications). Paragraph 0073: the outer loop 602 operates as a centralized controller that controls the RF exposure associated with the radios 606. This architecture means that the outer loop (“the control unit”) is “independent of the plurality of wireless devices” represented by WLAN and Bluetooth radios.).”
Regarding claims 7 and 20, NADAKUDUT’953 and ARPUTHARAJ teach “wherein the exposure state is at least one of a head exposure state, a body exposure state, or a limb exposure state (NADAKUDUT’953, paragraphs 0025 and 0064: one or more exposure scenarios (e.g., head exposure, extremity exposure, body exposure). ARPUTHARAJ, paragraph 0060: RF exposure scenario (e.g., a device state index corresponding to head exposure, body or torso exposure, extremity or hand exposure) encountered by the wireless device. Examples of RF exposure scenarios include cases where the wireless device is emitting RF signals proximate to human tissue, such as a user's head, hand, or body (e.g., torso)).”
Claims 4 and 17 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240214953 (NADAKUDUT’953) in view of US 20240430823 (ARPUTHARAJ) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of US 20230189168 (NADAKUDUT’168).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, NADAKUDUT’953 in combination with ARPUTHARAJ do not explicitly teach “detect a change in a numerical quantity of the plurality of wireless devices contributing to the RF exposure for the exposure state; and
transmit, to the respective wireless devices of the plurality of wireless devices, an updated exposure margin associated with the exposure state based at least in part on the change.”
NADAKUDUT’168 in FIG 5 with corresponding description teaches the case when there is a switch between a single radio operating at any one time (WiFi 508 during the first time period and WWAN 510 during the second time period in 502a) to two radios operating simultaneously during the third time period (WiFi/WWAN). As may be seen from 502b, transitioning from the second time period (when only a single radio operating) to the third time period (when both radios concurrently operate) results in updating exposure margins from 514/516 during the second time period to 514/516/518 during the third time period. This necessarily represents “detect a change in a numerical quantity of the plurality of wireless devices contributing to the RF exposure for the exposure state; and transmit, to the respective wireless devices of the plurality of wireless devices, an updated exposure margin associated with the exposure state based at least in part on the change.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by NADAKUDUT’168 transition from the first exposure margin to the second exposure margin based on the number of radios concurrently operating, in the system of combined NADAKUDUT’953 and ARPUTHARAJ’s disclosures. Doing so would have allowed to ensure that regardless of the number of radios operating simultaneously, the maximum RF exposure is not exceeded.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights