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 .
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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 03/26/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/26/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 6-8 are 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 6 recites the limitations "the second maximum transmission power" and “the first maximum transmission power”. However, these elements are not previously introduced in a chain of independent and/or dependent claims. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner whether the proper claim dependency of claim 6 is intended to be claims 4 and 5 or whether new limitations are meant to be introduced. Therefore, the Examiner will interpret "the second maximum transmission power" and “the first maximum transmission power” as "a second maximum transmission power" and “a first maximum transmission power”, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the first maximum transmission power”. However, this element is not previously introduced in a chain of independent and/or dependent claims. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner whether the proper claim dependency of claim 7 is intended to be claim 4 or whether new limitations are meant to be introduced. Therefore, the Examiner will interpret “the first maximum transmission power” as “a first maximum transmission power”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the second maximum transmission power”. However, this element is not previously introduced in a chain of independent and/or dependent claims. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner whether the proper claim dependency of claim 8 is intended to be claim 5 or whether new limitations are meant to be introduced. Therefore, the Examiner will interpret “the second maximum transmission power” as “a second maximum transmission power”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-6 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20210091805 A1), hereinafter Park, in view of Sui (WO 2022218196 A1), hereinafter Sui.
Regarding claim 1, Park, as shown below, discloses an electronic device comprising the following limitations:
a plurality of antennas (See at least Fig. 1, Item 197, [0050] “the antenna module 197 may include a plurality of antennas”);
antenna tuning circuitry connected to at least one antenna among the plurality of antennas (See at least Fig. 2, [0062] “the processor 210 may select a tuning code of the impedance matching module 240” );
RF circuitry connected to the antenna tuning circuitry (See at least Fig. 2, [0066] “the wireless communication module 220 may include a transceiver, an amplification module, and a front end module (FEM). According to an embodiment, the transceiver may convert data provided from the processor 210 (e.g., communication processor) into an RF signal (e.g., transmission (Tx) signal), and may output the RF signal to the front end module (FEM) through the amplification module.”);
at least one communication processor, comprising processing circuitry, operatively connected to the RF circuitry (See at least [0060] “FIG. 2, an electronic device 200 may include a processor (e.g., including processing circuitry) 210, a wireless communication module (e.g., wireless communication circuitry) 220,”); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by at least one communication processor, individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to (See at least [0056] “may be implemented as software (e.g., the program 140) including one or more instructions that are stored in a storage medium (e.g., internal memory 136 or external memory 138) that is readable by a machine (e.g., the electronic device 101). For example, a processor (e.g., the processor 120) of the machine (e.g., the electronic device 101)”):
determine an impedance change in at least one antenna connected to the antenna tuning circuitry among the plurality of antennas (See at least [0064] “the processor 210 may perform the first measurement for identifying an impedance change of the antenna 260”);
based on the determined impedance change, identify a tune code scenario among a plurality of specified tune code scenarios (See at least [0064] “The processor 210 may detect the index corresponding to the antenna impedance identified through the first measurement, and may identify the tuning code and the ground code corresponding to the detected index”);
identify a maximum transmission power of the at least one antenna corresponding to the identified tune code scenario (See at least Fig. 4, [0065] “the processor 210 may configure G0 coordinates 400 corresponding to 50 ohms and G1 coordinates 410 at which the highest transmission power (e.g., 24.8 dBm) is measured as reference impedances”); and
Park does not explicitly disclose determine a transmission power less than the maximum transmission power and control the RF circuitry to transmit an RF signal with the determined transmission power. However, Sui, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
determine a transmission power less than the maximum transmission power and control the RF circuitry to transmit an RF signal with the determined transmission power (See at least “The device adjusts the transmit power of the antenna from the third transmit power to the first transmit power; wherein the first transmit power is greater than or equal to the third transmit power, and the third transmit power is less than or equal to the maximum transmission power”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electronic device system disclosed by Park with the transmission power system disclosed by Sui. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance communication and improve user safety (See at least “so as to increase the transmit power as much as possible and enhance communication performance under the premise of ensuring user safety.”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Park and Sui, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Park further discloses
the identified tune code scenario includes a tune code for impedance matching of the at least one antenna and a ground logic for controlling an antenna beam radiated by the at least one antenna (See at least Fig. 2, [0064] “in a state where the impedance matching module 240 and the ground control module 250 are configured by the tuning code and the ground code identified through the first measurement.”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Park and Sui, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Park does not disclose the maximum transmission power of the at least one antenna is determined based on a specific absorption rate (SAR) value measured based on an antenna beam radiated by the at least one antenna corresponding one of the plurality of tune code scenarios. However, Sui further discloses
the maximum transmission power of the at least one antenna is determined based on a specific absorption rate (SAR) value measured based on an antenna beam radiated by the at least one antenna corresponding one of the plurality of tune code scenarios (See at least “a SAR limit value, which can limit the transmit power of the antenna of the terminal 103 when the terminal 103 transmits data”, “the antenna may be used in conjunction with a tuning switch. Antenna 1 and Antenna 2 can also be connected to an antenna impedance detection circuit, which can be used to detect whether there is an external object (such as a human body part such as a hand) near the antenna”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electronic device system disclosed by Park with the transmission power system disclosed by Sui. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance communication and improve user safety (See at least “so as to increase the transmit power as much as possible and enhance communication performance under the premise of ensuring user safety.”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Park and Sui, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Park does not disclose the instructions, when executed by at least one communication processor, individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to determine a transmission power less than a first maximum transmission power as the transmission power of the at least one antenna based on a tune code corresponding to the identified tune code scenario being a first tune code. However, Sui further discloses
the instructions, when executed by at least one communication processor (See at least “the computer program code includes computer instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to perform the first aspect or the second aspect”), individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to determine a transmission power less than a first maximum transmission power as the transmission power of the at least one antenna based on a tune code corresponding to the identified tune code scenario being a first tune code (See at least “The device adjusts the transmit power of the antenna from the third transmit power to the first transmit power; wherein the first transmit power is greater than or equal to the third transmit power, and the third transmit power is less than or equal to the maximum transmission power”, “a SAR limit value, which can limit the transmit power of the antenna of the terminal 103 when the terminal 103 transmits data”, “the antenna may be used in conjunction with a tuning switch. Antenna 1 and Antenna 2 can also be connected to an antenna impedance detection circuit, which can be used to detect whether there is an external object (such as a human body part such as a hand) near the antenna”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electronic device system disclosed by Park with the transmission power system disclosed by Sui. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance communication and improve user safety (See at least “so as to increase the transmit power as much as possible and enhance communication performance under the premise of ensuring user safety.”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Park and Sui, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Park does not disclose the instructions, when executed by at least one communication processor, individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to determine a transmission power less than a first maximum transmission power as the transmission power of the at least one antenna based on a tune code corresponding to the identified tune code scenario being a first tune code. However, Sui further discloses
the instructions, when executed by at least one communication processor (See at least “the computer program code includes computer instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to perform the first aspect or the second aspect”), individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to determine a transmission power less than a second maximum transmission power as the transmission power of the at least one antenna based on a tune code corresponding to the identified tune code scenario being a second tune code (See at least “The device adjusts the transmit power of the antenna from the third transmit power to the first transmit power; wherein the first transmit power is greater than or equal to the third transmit power, and the third transmit power is less than or equal to the maximum transmission power”, “a SAR limit value, which can limit the transmit power of the antenna of the terminal 103 when the terminal 103 transmits data”, “the antenna may be used in conjunction with a tuning switch. Antenna 1 and Antenna 2 can also be connected to an antenna impedance detection circuit, which can be used to detect whether there is an external object (such as a human body part such as a hand) near the antenna” The examiner notes that a first and second tune code and first and second maximum transmission power are not defined in the claims as being different under their broadest reasonable interpretations.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electronic device system disclosed by Park with the transmission power system disclosed by Sui. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance communication and improve user safety (See at least “so as to increase the transmit power as much as possible and enhance communication performance under the premise of ensuring user safety.”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Park and Sui, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Park further discloses
the second maximum transmission power is determined to have a value greater than the first maximum transmission power (See at least “the electronic device can adjust different antenna transmit powers according to different usage scenarios” Park discloses a variety of maximum transmission powers).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Park and Sui, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Park further discloses
when executed by at least one communication processor, individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to (See at least [0060] “FIG. 2, an electronic device 200 may include a processor (e.g., including processing circuitry) 210, a wireless communication module (e.g., wireless communication circuitry) 220,”) (See at least [0004] “the impedance matching may mean an operation capable of performing a maximum power transfer transmission to an antenna by matching the impedance of the antenna” The Examiner note that Park discloses using impedance matching for control of maximum transmission power) of the at least one antenna based on a tune code corresponding to the identified tune code scenario being a first tune and a ground logic corresponding to the identified tune code scenario being a first logic (See at least [0064] “The processor 210 may detect the index corresponding to the antenna impedance identified through the first measurement, and may identify the tuning code and the ground code corresponding to the detected index”).
Park does not disclose
(See at least “The device adjusts the transmit power of the antenna from the third transmit power to the first transmit power; wherein the first transmit power is greater than or equal to the third transmit power, and the third transmit power is less than or equal to the maximum transmission power”, “a SAR limit value, which can limit the transmit power of the antenna of the terminal 103 when the terminal 103 transmits data”, “the antenna may be used in conjunction with a tuning switch. Antenna 1 and Antenna 2 can also be connected to an antenna impedance detection circuit, which can be used to detect whether there is an external object (such as a human body part such as a hand) near the antenna”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electronic device system disclosed by Park with the transmission power system disclosed by Sui. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance communication and improve user safety (See at least “so as to increase the transmit power as much as possible and enhance communication performance under the premise of ensuring user safety.”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Park and Sui, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Park further discloses
when executed by at least one communication processor, individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to (See at least [0060] “FIG. 2, an electronic device 200 may include a processor (e.g., including processing circuitry) 210, a wireless communication module (e.g., wireless communication circuitry) 220,”) (See at least [0004] “the impedance matching may mean an operation capable of performing a maximum power transfer transmission to an antenna by matching the impedance of the antenna” The Examiner note that Park discloses using impedance matching for control of maximum transmission power) of the at least one antenna based on a tune code corresponding to the identified tune code scenario being a first tune code and a ground logic corresponding to the identified tune code scenario being a second logic (See at least [0064] “The processor 210 may detect the index corresponding to the antenna impedance identified through the first measurement, and may identify the tuning code and the ground code corresponding to the detected index”).
Park does not disclose
(See at least “The device adjusts the transmit power of the antenna from the third transmit power to the first transmit power; wherein the first transmit power is greater than or equal to the third transmit power, and the third transmit power is less than or equal to the maximum transmission power”, “a SAR limit value, which can limit the transmit power of the antenna of the terminal 103 when the terminal 103 transmits data”, “the antenna may be used in conjunction with a tuning switch. Antenna 1 and Antenna 2 can also be connected to an antenna impedance detection circuit, which can be used to detect whether there is an external object (such as a human body part such as a hand) near the antenna” The examiner notes that a first and second tune code and first and second maximum transmission power are not defined in the claims as being different under their broadest reasonable interpretations.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electronic device system disclosed by Park with the transmission power system disclosed by Sui. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance communication and improve user safety (See at least “so as to increase the transmit power as much as possible and enhance communication performance under the premise of ensuring user safety.”).
Regarding claim 11, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 12, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2, shown above.
Regarding claim 13, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3, shown above.
Regarding claim 14, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4, shown above.
Regarding claim 15, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 5. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5, shown above.
Regarding claim 16, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 17, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2, shown above.
Regarding claim 18, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3, shown above.
Regarding claim 19, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4, shown above.
Regarding claim 20, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 5. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5, shown above.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Sui, in further view of Cha (US 20210051599 A1), hereinafter Cha.
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Park and Sui, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Park and Sui does not explicitly disclose the first maximum transmission power is determined to have a value between 18 dBm and 20 dBm. However, Cha, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the first maximum transmission power is determined to have a value between 18 dBm and 20 dBm (See at least Table 3, [0139] “LTE SAR backoff power of 22.5 dBm or NR SAR backoff power of 20 dBm” Cha discloses a backoff power as a maximum transmission power).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electronic device system disclosed by Park with the transmission power system disclosed by Sui with the maximum transmission power system disclosed by Cha. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve user safety (See at least [0010] “an electronic device that is capable of identifying whether to back off transmission power based on a cumulative SAR value identified based on an antenna configuration, and an operation method thereof are provided. Accordingly, an average SAR does not exceed a threshold average value, and thus user safety may be improved”).
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Park and Sui, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Park and Sui does not explicitly disclose the second maximum transmission power is determined to have a value between 21 dBm and 24 dBm. However, Cha, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the second maximum transmission power is determined to have a value between 21 dBm and 24 dBm (See at least Table 3, [0139] “LTE SAR backoff power of 22.5 dBm or NR SAR backoff power of 20 dBm” Cha discloses a backoff power as a maximum transmission power).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electronic device system disclosed by Park with the transmission power system disclosed by Sui with the maximum transmission power system disclosed by Cha. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve user safety (See at least [0010] “an electronic device that is capable of identifying whether to back off transmission power based on a cumulative SAR value identified based on an antenna configuration, and an operation method thereof are provided. Accordingly, an average SAR does not exceed a threshold average value, and thus user safety may be improved”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Byk (US 20230060811 A1) - Methods and systems for mitigating interference between different transceivers in a portable communication device. An electronic control circuit is configured to quantify an electromagnetic isolation between a first transceiver of a portable communication and a second transceiver of the portable communication device based on a detected radio frequency power coupled to the first transceiver from radio frequency signals transmitted by the second transceiver. A mitigation action is selected from a plurality of mitigation actions based on a magnitude of the quantified electromagnetic isolation. The selected mitigation action is then applied to the second transceiver to adjust at least one radio frequency characteristic of the second transceiver.
Kasireddy (US 20220247238 A1) - A demodulation circuit includes a slope detector circuit and a comparator circuit. The slope detector circuit is configured detect a change in the voltage and determine if the voltage rate of change meets or exceeds one of a rise threshold or a fall threshold. The comparator circuit is configured to set an upper limit and lower limit for rate of change, compare the voltage rate of change to the limits, determine that the voltage rate of change meets or exceeds the limits, if the voltage rate of change meets or exceeds the rising and falling rate of change limits, (v) set a lower limit for a falling rate of change, (vi) receive the voltage rate of change and determine that the voltage rate of change meets or exceeds the fall or rise threshold, if the voltage rate of change meets or exceeds the falling or rising rate of change.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Resha H Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights