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 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.
Claim 1-3, 5-11, 13-16, 18-24, 26-27, 29, 33 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YUM et al. (Patent No: US 20190222283 A1) in view of Seunghyun LEE et al. (Patent No: US2021/0110261 A1), hereinafter, LEE.
Regarding Claim 1, YUM teaches,
A first device for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors coupled to the one or memories, the one or more processors configured to cause the first device to: -Fig. 15; Paragraph [0402] (FIG. 15, shows the wireless communication system includes an eNB 1510 and multiple UEs 1520 positioned within the area of the eNB 1510 [0402] recites, “The UE 1520 includes a processor 1521, memory 1522 and an RF module 1523.”)
generate a multi-part -Fig. 10-12; Paragraph [0281-0288, 0327] ([0281-0288] recites, “For Type I and Type II CSIs on the PUSCH, the CSI reporting includes two parts (Part 1 and Part 2) as illustrated in FIG. 11. Part 1 1010 is used for identifying the number of information bits of Part 2 1020. The entirety of Part 1 is transmitted before Part 2. For Type I CSI feedback, Part 1 contains an RI (if reported), a CRI (if reported), and a CQI of a first codeword. Part 2 includes a PMI and includes a CQI for a second codeword when RI>4. For Type II CSI feedback, Part 1 has a fixed payload size and includes the RI, the CQI and an indication (NZBI) for the number of non-zero wideband amplitude coefficients per layer for Type II CSI. In Part 1, the RI, the CQI, and the NZBI are separately encoded. Part 2 includes the PMI of Type II CSI. Parts 1 and 2 are encoded separately” [0327] recites, “A part 1 1210 may have fixed payload depending on the number of ports, a CSI type, an RI restriction, etc. A part 2 1220 may have various payload sizes depending on the part 1” As explained above part 1 contains number of non-zero wideband amplitude coefficients per layer and part 2 indicates number of weights PMI depending on part 1. )
YUM does not explicitly teach
and transmit the
However, In an analogous invention LEE teaches,
and transmit the Fig. 7; Paragraph [0106] (Fig. 7 shows neural network-based CSF message generation by the UE (first device) and transmission to BS (second device). [0106] recites, “….The Tx NN 705 may convert the pre-processed output matrix {tilde over (H)} into a codeword vector. The codeword vector is converted into a signal in a form that is transmissible via a CSI transmitter 706, and may be fed back to the BS (CSI report)….” LEE does not restrict the CSF generation process to any particular CSF message, rather generic CSF message generation based on neural network. It is easily conceivable to an ordinary person with the skill in the art that the multi-part CSF structure can be easily integrated to the neural network-based CSF generation process of LEE without modification.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “Method for Reporting Channel State Information in Wireless Communication System” proposed by YUM with the concept of LEE to include “transmit the ” One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the spectral efficiency and the overall network performances [0006].
Regarding Claim 2, YUM and LEE combination teach the limitations of Claim 1
YUM further teaches
The first device of claim 1, wherein the first part indicates one or more of: a number of layers -Paragraph [0268-0269]( ([0268-0269] recites, “NZBI is a parameter representing an indication of the number of non-zero wideband amplitude coefficients per layer for the Type II PMI codebook. That is, NZBI is a parameter representing an indication of the number of non-zero wideband amplitude coefficients per layer for the Type II PMI codebook.” As shown in Fig. 10, first part contains NZBI which are the numbers of amplitude coefficients per layer and the second part contains the coefficients (PMI))
b) or relevance of weights reported in the second part. -Paragraph [0292-0293] ([0292-0293] recites, “When the CSI reporting includes two parts in the PUSCH and a CSI payload to be reported has a smaller payload size provided in a PUSCH resource allocated for CSI reporting, the UE may omit some of Part 2 CSI. Omission of Part 2 CSI is determined according to the priority and Priority 0 is a highest priority and the priority has a lowest priority.” As explained, when the resource for transmitting full CSI report is not available, part of the weight with highest priority (relevance) is transmitted and lower priority weight is discarded)
YUM explicitly does not teach
a number of layers in a neural network used to generate the
However, LEE teaches
a number of layers in a neural network used to generate the -Paragraph [0102-0104] ([0102] recites, “The autoencoder NN may be configured to include an input layer, an output layer, and one or more hidden layers, and the autoencoder NN may be defined based on the number of layers, the number of nodes for each layer, and the connection weight between nodes.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “Method for Reporting Channel State Information in Wireless Communication System” proposed by YUM with the concept of LEE to include “a number of layers in a neural network used to generate the ” One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the spectral efficiency and the overall network performances [0006].
Regarding Claim 3, YUM and LEE combination teach the limitations of Claim 1.
YUM further teaches
The first device of claim 1, wherein the first part indicates: the contents of the second part using an implicit indication, the contents of the second part using an explicit indication, -Fig. 10; Paragraph [0268-0269] ([0268-0269] recites, “NZBI is a parameter representing an indication of the number of non-zero wideband amplitude coefficients per layer for the Type II PMI codebook. That is, NZBI is a parameter representing an indication of the number of non-zero wideband amplitude coefficients per layer for the Type II PMI codebook.” As explained, NZBI parameter is indicated in part 1 for PMI that is indicated in the second part as shown in Fig. 10)
or the contents of the second part using an implicit indication and an explicit indication. -Fig. 10; Paragraph [0267-0269] ( The second device (BS) receives from first device (UE) over PUSCH one or more coefficients (weights) as shown in Fig. 10. [0267-0269] recites, “FIG. 10 illustrates an example of an information payload of PUSCH based CSI reporting. NZBI is a parameter representing an indication of the number of non-zero wideband amplitude coefficients per layer for the Type II PMI codebook. That is, NZBI is a parameter representing an indication of the number of non-zero wideband amplitude coefficients per layer for the Type II PMI codebook.”)
Regarding Claim 5, YUM and LEE combination teach the limitations of Claim 1.
YUM further teaches
The first device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the first device to: transmit an indication of one or more weights used to generate the multi-part . -Paragraph [0013][0186] (The transmission of indication of weight happens over Part I of CSF feedback signaling and the reporting can be via aperiodic/periodic/semi-persistent signaling. [0013] recites, “Furthermore, in one embodiment, at least one of the configuration values of periodic and/or semi-persistent reporting related to the CSI reporting of the one activated UL BWP or numerology is deactivated, when at least one of the one activated UL BWP or the numerology for the reporting of the CSI is changed “ [0186] recites, “As time domain behaviors of the CSI measurement and reporting, aperiodic/semi-persistent/periodic channel measurement (CM) and interference measurement (IM) are supported.”)
Although implicit, YUM does not explicitly mention,
generate the
However, Lee teaches,
generate the Fig. 7; Paragraph [0106] (Fig. 7 shows neural network-based CSF message generation by the UE (first device) and transmission to BS (second device). Also, explained in Claim 1)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “Method for Reporting Channel State Information in Wireless Communication System” proposed by YUM with the concept of LEE to include “generate the . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the spectral efficiency and the overall network performances [0006].
Regarding Claim 6, YUM and LEE combination teach the limitations of Claim 1
YUM further teaches
The first device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, are configured to cause the first device to: transmit an indication of one or more weights used to generate the multi- part -Fig. 10; Paragraph [0285][0287] ([0285] recites, “For Type II CSI feedback, Part 1 has a fixed payload size and includes the RI, the CQI and an indication (NZBI) for the number of non-zero wideband amplitude coefficients per layer for Type II CSI.” [0287] recites, “Part 2 includes the PMI of Type II CSI.” As shown in Fig. 10 and as explained above, first indication part (Part I) indicates among other things number of amplitude coefficients per layer of Type II CSI, while Part II actually includes the coefficients or PMI)
Although implicit, YUM does not explicitly mention,
generate
However, Lee teaches,
generate Fig. 7; Paragraph [0106] (Fig. 7 shows neural network-based CSF message generation by the UE (first device) and transmission to BS (second device). Also, explained in Claim 1)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “Method for Reporting Channel State Information in Wireless Communication System” proposed by YUM with the concept of LEE to include “generate ” One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the spectral efficiency and the overall network performances [0006].
Regarding Claim 7, YUM and LEE combination teach the limitations of Claim 6
YUM further teaches
The first device of claim 6, wherein the first indication part indicates one or more of: layers for which weights are reported in the second indication part, a ranking of the layers for which weights are reported in the second indication part, locations, within the second indication part, of weights of the layers for which weights are reported in the second indication part, -Fig. 10; Paragraph [0268-0269] ([0268-0269] recites, “NZBI is a parameter representing an indication of the number of non-zero wideband amplitude coefficients per layer for the Type II PMI codebook. That is, NZBI is a parameter representing an indication of the number of non-zero wideband amplitude coefficients per layer for the Type II PMI codebook.” As seen in Fig. 10, Part 1 has Rank indicator (RI), Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) and also NZBI indicating the number of weights for layers, while the actual weights (PMI) are in the second part. It is understandable to ordinary person with skill in the art that location within the part (mapping) is signaled in the configuration and both devices know where to extract the information from)
whether weights are presented in a row order or a column order in the second indication part, a kernel size of layers for which weights are reported in the second indication part, locations, within a neural network, of hidden weights and cell state weights of the layers for which weights are reported in the second indication part, (Whether the weights (PMI) are presented in row or column order, layer size for which weights are reported, locations, hidden weights and cell state weights within neural networks etc. all are part of the configuration. Both devices will know this information from configuration messages or from pre-defined setting. It is easily understandable to an ordinary person with skill in the art that this information will be readily available and can be configured in order support multi-part neural network-based CSF message.)
Regarding Claim 8, YUM and LEE combination teach the limitations of Claim 6
YUM further teaches
The first device of claim 6, wherein the second indication part comprises: indications of the one or more weights used to generate the multi-part -Fig. 10, 11; Paragraph [0284] ([0284] recites, “Part 2 includes a PMI and includes a CQI for a second codeword when RI>4” PMI is the weights used to generate multi-part neural network-based CSF message)
Although implicit, YUM does not explicitly mention,
generate
However, Lee teaches,
generate Fig. 7; Paragraph [0106] (Fig. 7 shows neural network-based CSF message generation by the UE (first device) and transmission to BS (second device). Also, explained in Claim 1)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “Method for Reporting Channel State Information in Wireless Communication System” proposed by YUM with the concept of LEE to include “generate ” One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the spectral efficiency and the overall network performances [0006].
Regarding Claim 9, YUM and LEE combination teach the limitations of Claim 8.
YUM further teaches,
The first device of claim 8, wherein the indications of the one or more weights used to generate the multi-part -Paragraph [0292-0293] ([0291-0293] recites, “When the CSI reporting includes two parts in the PUSCH and a CSI payload to be reported has a smaller payload size provided in a PUSCH resource allocated for CSI reporting, the UE may omit some of Part 2 CSI. Omission of Part 2 CSI is determined according to the priority and Priority 0 is a highest priority and the priority has a lowest priority.” AS explained above, when the PUSCH resource size allocated to transmit both parts of CSF, part 2 CSI report (CSF) that carries PMI (weight) and have low priority will be omitted. That is, PMI (weight) with relevance (higher priority) is ordered to be transmitted in the second part.)
Although implicit, YUM does not explicitly mention,
generate
However, Lee teaches,
generate Fig. 7; Paragraph [0106] (Fig. 7 shows neural network-based CSF message generation by the UE (first device) and transmission to BS (second device). Also, explained in Claim 1)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “Method for Reporting Channel State Information in Wireless Communication System” proposed by YUM with the concept of LEE to include “generate ” One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the spectral efficiency and the overall network performances [0006].
Regarding Claim 10, YUM and LEE combination teach the limitations of Claim 1
YUM further teaches,
The first device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first device to: determine that resources for transmitting the multi-part , -Paragraph [0292] ([0292] recites, “When the CSI reporting includes two parts in the PUSCH and a CSI payload to be reported has a smaller payload size provided in a PUSCH resource allocated for CSI reporting, the UE may omit some of Part 2 CSI.”)
and determine a portion of the CSF to report within the multi-part . -Paragraph [0293] ([0293] recites, “Omission of Part 2 CSI is determined according to the priority and Priority 0 is a highest priority and the priority has a lowest priority.”)
Although implicit, YUM does not explicitly mention,
transmitting the
However, Lee teaches,
transmitting the Fig. 7; Paragraph [0106] (Fig. 7 shows neural network-based CSF message generation by the UE (first device) and transmission to BS (second device). Also, explained in Claim 1)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “Method for Reporting Channel State Information in Wireless Communication System” proposed by YUM with the concept of LEE to include “transmitting the . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the spectral efficiency and the overall network performances [0006].
Regarding Claim 11, YUM and LEE combination teach the limitations of Claim 10
YUM further teaches,
The first device of claim 10, wherein the one or more processors, to determine the portion of the CSF, are configured to cause the first device to: determine to delay transmission of a low priority portion of the CSF,
or determine to discard a low priority portion of the CSF. -Paragraph [0293] ([0293] recites, “Omission of Part 2 CSI is determined according to the priority and Priority 0 is a highest priority and the priority has a lowest priority.”)
Regarding Claim 13, YUM and LEE combination teach the limitations of Claim 1.
YUM further teaches,
The first device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first device to: determine that resources for transmitting the multi-part , -Paragraph [0292] ([0292] recites, “When the CSI reporting includes two parts in the PUSCH and a CSI payload to be reported has a smaller payload size provided in a PUSCH resource allocated for CSI reporting, the UE may omit some of Part 2 CSI.”)
and generate one or more additional multi-part . (It is a common means to generate new message when information payload needed to be transmitted cannot be fitted within the allocated resources and transmit. It is easily understandable to an ordinary person with skill in the art that, when resources for transmitting CSF message is insufficient for a full CSF report, additional message can be created to transport the full message)
Although implicit, YUM does not explicitly mention,
transmitting the
However, Lee teaches,
transmitting the Fig. 7; Paragraph [0106] (Fig. 7 shows neural network-based CSF message generation by the UE (first device) and transmission to BS (second device). Also, explained in Claim 1)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “Method for Reporting Channel State Information in Wireless Communication System” proposed by YUM with the concept of LEE to include “transmitting the . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the spectral efficiency and the overall network performances [0006].
Claim 14 is very similar to Claim 1 except Claim 14 is viewed from network perspective (e.g., receive CSI feedback etc.), whereas, Claim 1 is viewed from terminal (UE) perspective (e.g., send CSI feedback etc.). The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 1 which is rejected above. Claim 14 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1.
Claims 15-16, 18-24, 26 are essentially the same as corresponding Claims 2-3, 5-11, 13 for second device of wireless communication that first device is communicating with. Claims 2-3, 5-11, 13 are rejected above. Applicant’s attention is drawn to Claims 2-3, 5-11, 13. Claims 15-16, 18-24, 26 are rejected with the same rational as for Claims 2-3, 5-11, 13.
Claim 27 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 1 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 1. Claim 27 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Claims 29 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus Claim 14. The applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 14 which is rejected above. Claim 29 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 33, YUM and LEE teach the limitations of Claim 1.
YUM further teaches,
The first device of claim 1, wherein the number of non-zero wideband amplitude coefficients per layer is in accordance with a Type II codebook. -Fig. 10; Paragraph[0267-0268] ([0267-0268] recites, “ FIG. 10 illustrates an example of an information payload of PUSCH based CSI reporting. NZBI is a parameter representing an indication of the number of non-zero wideband amplitude coefficients per layer for the Type II PMI codebook.”)
Claim 35 is very similar to Claim 33 except Claim 35 is viewed from network perspective whereas, Claim 33 is viewed from terminal (UE) perspective. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 33 which is rejected above. Claim 35 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 33.
Regarding Claim 36, YUM and LEE teach the limitations of Claim 1.
YUM further teaches,
The first device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the first device to generate the multi-part -Paragraph [0149] ([0149] recites, “To perform one of the above purposes of a CSI-RS, a terminal (e.g., a UE) receives CSI related configuration information from a base station (e.g., a general node B (gNB)) through a radio resource control (RRC) signaling (S9010).”)
Although implicit, YUM does not explicitly mention,
generate
However, Lee teaches,
generate Fig. 7; Paragraph [0106] (Fig. 7 shows neural network-based CSF message generation by the UE (first device) and transmission to BS (second device). Also, explained in Claim 1)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “Method for Reporting Channel State Information in Wireless Communication System” proposed by YUM with the concept of LEE to include “generate ” One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the spectral efficiency and the overall network performances [0006].
Regarding Claim 37, YUM and LEE teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Although implicit, YUM does not explicitly mention,
The first device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the multi-part neural network-based CSF message, are configured to cause the first device to: encode a data set using a neural network for uplink communication.
However, Lee teaches,
The first device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the multi-part neural network-based CSF message, are configured to cause the first device to: encode a data set using a neural network for uplink communication. -Fig. 7; Paragraph [0106-0107] ([0106] recites, “FIG. 7 illustrates a diagram illustrating an autoencoder-based downlink channel feedback scheme 700 according to an embodiment. According to the feedback scheme, a Tx NN 705 of the autoencoder NN, which is learned via deep learning, may be disposed in a UE 701, and an Rx NN 708 may be disposed in a BS 702. The UE may perform pre-processing 704 of an estimated downlink channel matrix H 703 so as to produce a new matrix {tilde over (H)}. The Tx NN 705 may convert the pre-processed output matrix {tilde over (H)} into a codeword vector. The codeword vector is converted into a signal in a form that is transmissible via a CSI transmitter 706, and may be fed back to the BS (CSI report). Feedback may be performed periodically or aperiodically via a PUCCH or a PUSCH.” As shown in Fig. 7 and described, the first device (UE) performs encoding of the data set into a codeword vector and send via PUCCH or PUSCH, i.e., uplink transmission.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “Method for Reporting Channel State Information in Wireless Communication System” proposed by YUM with the concept of LEE to include “encode a data set using a neural network for uplink communication.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the spectral efficiency and the overall network performances [0006].
Claims 12, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YUM in view of LEE and further in view of Racape et al. (Patent No: US 20230064234 A1), hereinafter, Racape.
Regarding Claim 12, YUM and LEE combination teach the limitations of Claim 1.
YUM and LEE combination teach,
Generation and transmission of multi-part neural network-based CSF message (See Recitation and Explanation in Claim 1)
YUM does not explicitly teach
The first device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first device to : determine that resources for transmitting the
However, Racape teaches,
The first device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first device to : determine that resources for transmitting the -Paragraph [0182] ([0182] recites, “…In various embodiments, such processes include one or more of the processes typically performed by an encoder, for example, partitioning, differential encoding, transformation, quantization, and entropy encoding…” It is easily understandable to ordinary person with the skill in the art that when resource is insufficient to transmit full CSF messages (which contains weights), it is possible to do differential encoding of the weights and quantize the weights into reduce bit count within the deep neural network CSF platform.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “Method for Reporting Channel State Information in Wireless Communication System” proposed by YUM and modified by LU to generate the multi-part neural network based CSF message to further modify to include the concept of Racape to include “perform differential encoding of weights used to generate the ” One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve compression efficiency [0004]
Claim 25 is essentially the same as Claim 12 for second device of wireless communication that first device is communicating with. Claims 12 is rejected above. Applicant’s attention is drawn to Claims 12. Claims 25 is rejected with the same rational as for Claims 12
Response to Argument(s)
Applicant's argument(s) filed on February 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore, the Examiner regretfully maintains the rejection.
The Applicant Argues that,
YUM does not disclose at least "generating a multi-part neural network-based channel state information feedback (CSF) message that comprises: a first part that includes an indication of a number of non-zero wideband amplitude coefficients per layer and indicates a number of weights per layer reported in a second part, and the second part," as recited in amended claim 1 (emphasis added). This is because, for example, there is no disclosure in YUM of a first part of a multi-part CSF message that includes an indication of a number of non-zero wideband amplitude coefficients per layer and indicates a number of weights per layer reported in a second part of the multi-part CSF message, as recited in amended claim 1. In particular, YUM
does not disclose that Part 1 indicates a number of weights per layer that are reported in a second part of the multi-part CSF message. -Page (15-17).
In response, the Examiner, respectfully does not agree with the Applicant’s arguments and with citation from used prior-art and with additional explanation, believes the amended claim is covered by the used prior-arts (YUM and LEE) and therefore, regretfully maintains the rejection status. The Explanation is given above and is written here again in the following for convenience.
YUM teaches,
generate a multi-part -Fig. 10-12; Paragraph [0281-0288, 0327] ([0281-0288] recites, “For Type I and Type II CSIs on the PUSCH, the CSI reporting includes two parts (Part 1 and Part 2) as illustrated in FIG. 11. Part 1 1010 is used for identifying the number of information bits of Part 2 1020. The entirety of Part 1 is transmitted before Part 2. For Type I CSI feedback, Part 1 contains an RI (if reported), a CRI (if reported), and a CQI of a first codeword. Part 2 includes a PMI and includes a CQI for a second codeword when RI>4. For Type II CSI feedback, Part 1 has a fixed payload size and includes the RI, the CQI and an indication (NZBI) for the number of non-zero wideband amplitude coefficients per layer for Type II CSI. In Part 1, the RI, the CQI, and the NZBI are separately encoded. Part 2 includes the PMI of Type II CSI. Parts 1 and 2 are encoded separately” [0327] recites, “A part 1 1210 may have fixed payload depending on the number of ports, a CSI type, an RI restriction, etc. A part 2 1220 may have various payload sizes depending on the part 1” As explained above part 1 contains number of non-zero wideband amplitude coefficients per layer and part 2 indicates number of weights PMI depending on part 1. Therefore, the examiner does not agree with the applicant.)
YUM does not explicitly teach
and transmit the
However, In an analogous invention LEE teaches,
and transmit the Fig. 7; Paragraph [0106] (Fig. 7 shows neural network-based CSF message generation by the UE (first device) and transmission to BS (second device). [0106] recites, “….The Tx NN 705 may convert the pre-processed output matrix {tilde over (H)} into a codeword vector. The codeword vector is converted into a signal in a form that is transmissible via a CSI transmitter 706, and may be fed back to the BS (CSI report)….” LEE does not restrict the CSF generation process to any particular CSF message, rather generic CSF message generation based on neural network. It is easily conceivable to an ordinary person with the skill in the art that the multi-part CSF structure can be easily integrated to the neural network-based CSF generation process of LEE without modification.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “Method for Reporting Channel State Information in Wireless Communication System” proposed by YUM with the concept of LEE to include “generate ” One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the spectral efficiency and the overall network performances [0006].
The Applicant argues,
Independent claims 14, 27, and 29, as amended, recite similar features. Therefore,
independent claims 1, 14, 27, and 29, and the claims that depend thereon, are patentable over YUM and SEUNGHYUN LEE. (page 17)
The Examiner’s response is the following:
Along the same line as Claim 1, the examiner believes and explained above (the applicant is directed to the rejection section above) for each and individual claims why the examiner believes and regretfully retains the rejection status for other independent claims.
For all other dependent claims derived out of the independent claims and also for the new dependent claims derived out of independent claim 1, applicant’s attention is directed towards the claim rejection section above (for explanation of rejection along with reference from the used prior-arts). The examiner regretfully maintains rejection status for all the independent and dependent claims along with the two new dependent claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED SAIFUDDIN whose telephone number is (703)756-4581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6:00pm.
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, KHALED M KASSIM can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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.
/AHMED SAIFUDDIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights