DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on 03/17/2026 has been entered and made of record.
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 Status
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 11-12, 14, 17, 19, 21-22, 24, 26, 27 and 32 are amended.
Claims 4, 20 and 30 are canceled
Claims 33-35 are added.
Claims 1-3, 5-19, 21-29 and 31-35 are pending for examination.
Applicant Argument
Applicant’s response has been fully considered. Below are applicant’s main arguments and examiner’s response to those arguments:
Applicant’s argument: (remark pages 13-15), filed on 03/17/2026, with respect to claim 1, ‘Applicant respectfully submits that PARK, LIAO, and COENEN do not disclose each and every feature recited in amended claim 1 … Applicant submits that amended claim 1 is patentable’.
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Park teaches select a subset of parameters with a size fit into the available capacity by reducing one parameter a time, in another word, the subset of parameters to include in CSI, with a size fit into the available capacity, is selected from all subset of parameters, which form the set of candidate subset of parameters with their corresponding sizes (a set candidate number of bits) (Park: [0023], [0656]). Therefore, Park teaches the subject matter as claimed.
Applicant’s arguments (remark pages 12-15), filed on 03/17/2026, with respect to claims 1-3, 5-19, 21-29 and 31-35 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection below which better address the claimed invention as amended.
This Office Action is made Final.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-16, 18-18, 2-29, 31 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20220006496 A1), hereinafter “Park”, in view of Liao et al. (“CSI Feedback Based on Deep Learning for Massive MIMO Systems”), hereinafter “Liao”.
Per claim 1, 11, 21 and 26:
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches ‘A first device for wireless communication’ (Park: [FIG.30]: “First Device”; [0845]: “the first wireless device”); ‘comprising: one or more memories’ (Park: [FIG.30]: “Memory(s)”); ‘one or more processors’ (Park: [FIG.30]: “Processors”); ‘coupled to the one or more memories’ (this is implied), ‘the one or more processors configured to cause the first device to’ (Park: [0845]: “The processor 102 may control the memory 104 and/or the transceiver 106 and may be configured to implement descriptions, functions, procedures, proposals, methods, and/or operation flows”);
‘receive an indication to use a first number of bits to report neural network based channel state information feedback (CSF)’ (Park: [FIG.18]: S1810: “base station” to “UE”: “CSI related configuration information”; [0249]: “The UE that receives the indication/configuration”; [0023]: “a capacity of the resource allocated for transmitting the CSI is smaller than a size of a payload of the CSI calculated”; [0872]: “neural network”; receive an indication about the capacity of resource (size of payload) to report CSF). However, Park fails to expressly teach neural network based CSF.
‘transmit, using a second number of bits that is different from the first number of bits, a report that indicates the CSF to a second device’ (Park: [FIG.18]: S1830: “reporting CSF”; [0688]: “a UE can adjust the size of a payload of the CSI to be equal to or smaller than the capacity of the allocated resource”; transmit CSF report with a different size from the allocated size);
‘wherein the second number of bits corresponds to a selection from a set candidate number of bits based at least in part on an allocation of resources for transmitting the report’ (Park: [0023]: “the CSI consists of a first part and a second part, wherein when a capacity of the resource allocated for transmitting the CSI is smaller than a size of a payload of the CSI calculated based on the plurality of parameters, the size of the payload of the second part is reduced by applying at least one parameter until the size of the payload of the CSI becomes smaller than the capacity of the resource”; [0656]: “when the capacity of a resource configured for CSI reporting is smaller than a payload calculated based on a plurality of configured codebook parameters, the UE may calculate and/or determine a plurality of codebook parameters that is the most optimized and satisfy the capacity”; the subset of parameters to include in CSI, with a size fit into the available capacity, is selected from all subset of parameters, which form the set of candidate subset of parameters with its corresponding size, in another word, select from a set candidate number of bits).
However, Liao in the same field of endeavor teaches neural network based CSF (Liao: [Title]: “CSI Feedback Based on Deep Learning for Massive MIMO Systems”; [Page 2, Col 1]: “neural networks”; [Page 2, Col 1]: “Aiming at the problems of high computational complexity, low feedback accuracy in conventional algorithms …. Aiming at the shortcomings of existing CSI feedback algorithms in massive MIMO systems, this paper proposes a DL-based CSI feedback algorithm for FDD massive MIMO systems”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Liao’s teaching with that of Park in order to overcome the shortcoming, such as high computational complexity and low feedback accuracy, of existing CSF algorithms in massive MIMO systems (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 11, Park teaches ‘A second device for wireless communication’ (Park: [FIG.30]: “Second Device”; [0845]: “a second wireless device”); ‘comprising: one or more memories’ (Park: [FIG.30]: “Memory (s)”); ‘one or more processors’ (Park: [FIG.30]: “Processor (s)”); ‘coupled to the one or more memories’ (this is implied); ‘the one or more processors configured to cause the second device to’ (Park: [0845]: “The processor 102 may control the memory 104 and/or the transceiver 106 and may be configured to implement descriptions, functions, procedures, proposals, methods, and/or operation flows”);
‘transmit, to a first device, an indication to use a first number of bits to report neural network based channel state information feedback (CSF)’ (Park: [FIG.18]: S1810: “base station” to “UE”: “CSI related configuration information”; [0023]: “a capacity of the resource allocated for transmitting the CSI is smaller than a size of a payload of the CSI calculated”; [0872]: “neural network”; may transmit an indication about the capacity of resource (size of payload) to report CSF). However, Park fails to expressly teach neural network based CSF.
‘receive, from the first device, a report that indicates the CSF using a second number of bits that is different from the first number of bits’ (Park: [FIG.18]: S1830: “reporting CSF”; [0688]: “a UE can adjust the size of a payload of the CSI to be equal to or smaller than the capacity of the allocated resource”; may receive CSF report with a different size from the allocated size);
‘the second number of bits corresponding to a selection from a set of candidate numbers of bits that is based at least in part on an allocation of resources for transmitting the report’ (Park: [0023]: “the CSI consists of a first part and a second part, wherein when a capacity of the resource allocated for transmitting the CSI is smaller than a size of a payload of the CSI calculated based on the plurality of parameters, the size of the payload of the second part is reduced by applying at least one parameter until the size of the payload of the CSI becomes smaller than the capacity of the resource”; [0656]: “when the capacity of a resource configured for CSI reporting is smaller than a payload calculated based on a plurality of configured codebook parameters, the UE may calculate and/or determine a plurality of codebook parameters that is the most optimized and satisfy the capacity”; the subset of parameters to include in CSI, with a size fit into the available capacity, is selected from all subset of parameters, which form the set of candidate subset of parameters with its corresponding size, in another word, select from a set candidate number of bits).
However, Liao teaches neural network based CSF (Liao: [Title]: “CSI Feedback Based on Deep Learning for Massive MIMO Systems”; [Page 2, Col 1]: “neural networks”; [Page 2, Col 1]: “Aiming at the problems of high computational complexity, low feedback accuracy in conventional algorithms …. Aiming at the shortcomings of existing CSI feedback algorithms in massive MIMO systems, this paper proposes a DL-based CSI feedback algorithm for FDD massive MIMO systems”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Liao’s teaching with that of Park in order to overcome the shortcoming, such as high computational complexity and low feedback accuracy, of existing CSF algorithms in massive MIMO systems (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites the method implemented by the first device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 recites the method implemented by the second device of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above).
Per claim 2, 12, 22 and 27:
Regarding claim 2, combination of Park and Liao teaches the first device of claim 1 (discussed above).
Park teaches ‘determine that the allocation of resources for transmitting the report includes insufficient resources for transmitting the report using the first number of bits’ (Park: [0023]: “when a capacity of the resource allocated for transmitting the CSI is smaller than a size of a payload of the CSI calculated”, insufficient resources to transmit the CSF report);
‘determine to use the second number of bits based at least in part on the allocation of resources for transmitting the report including insufficient resources’ (Park: [0023]: “the size of the payload of the second part is reduced by applying at least one parameter until the size of the payload of the CSI becomes smaller than the capacity of the resource”, may reduce report size to be smaller than the allocated size, i.e. a different size based at least in part on the allocated size).
Regarding claim 12, combination of Park and Liao teaches the second device of claim 11 (discussed above).
Park teaches ‘transmit configuration information that indicates that the first device is to determine to use the second number of bits based at least in part on the allocation of resources for transmitting the report having insufficient resources for transmitting the report using the first number of bits’ (Park: [FIG.18]: S1810: “base station” to “UE”: “CSI related configuration information”; [0025]: “CSI can be reported although the size of an allocated resource is not sufficient for reporting the CSI by omitting some or all of parameters”; [0023]: “the CSI consists of a first part and a second part, wherein when a capacity of the resource allocated for transmitting the CSI is smaller than a size of a payload of the CSI calculated based on the plurality of parameters, the size of the payload of the second part is reduced by applying at least one parameter until the size of the payload of the CSI becomes smaller than the capacity of the resource”; may transmit configuration to indicate to use a different CSF report size from the allocated size in case it is insufficient).
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 recites the method implemented by the first device of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 recites the method implemented by the second device of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above).
Per claim 3 and 13:
Regarding claim 3, combination of Park and Liao teaches the first device of claim 2 (discussed above).
Park teaches ‘determine a set of prioritized bits to include in the second number of bits’ (Park: [0025]: “CSI can be reported although the size of an allocated resource is not sufficient for reporting the CSI by omitting some or all of parameters configuring the CSI based on priority”; may determine a set of prioritized bits to include in the CSF report).
Regarding claim 13, combination of Park and Liao teaches the second device of claim 11 (discussed above).
Park teaches ‘transmit configuration information that indicates that the first device is to determine a set of prioritized bits to include in the second number of bits’ (Park: [FIG.18]: S1810: “base station” to “UE”: “CSI related configuration information”; [0025]: “CSI can be reported although the size of an allocated resource is not sufficient for reporting the CSI by omitting some or all of parameters configuring the CSI based on priority”; may transmit configuration to indicate to determine a set of prioritized bits to include in the CSF report).
Regarding claim 14, combination of Park and Liao teaches the second device of claim 11 (discussed above).
Park teaches ‘transmit configuration information that indicates that the first device is to select, from the set of candidate numbers of bits, the second number of bits’ (Park: [FIG.18]: S1810: “base station” to “UE”: “CSI related configuration information”; [0023]: “the CSI consists of a first part and a second part, wherein when a capacity of the resource allocated for transmitting the CSI is smaller than a size of a payload of the CSI calculated based on the plurality of parameters, the size of the payload of the second part is reduced by applying at least one parameter until the size of the payload of the CSI becomes smaller than the capacity of the resource”; [0656]: “when the capacity of a resource configured for CSI reporting is smaller than a payload calculated based on a plurality of configured codebook parameters, the UE may calculate and/or determine a plurality of codebook parameters that is the most optimized and satisfy the capacity”; the subset of parameters to include in CSI, with a size fit into the available capacity, is selected from all subset of parameters, which form the set of candidate subset of parameters with its corresponding size, in another word, select from a set candidate number of bits).
Per claim 5 and 15:
Regarding claim 5, combination of Park and Liao teaches the first device of claim 1 (discussed above).
Park teaches ‘receive a configuration of the set of candidate numbers of bits’ (Park: [0009]: “receiving configuration information for CSI reporting from the base station, wherein the configuration information includes a plurality of parameters for compressing the CSI”; [0013]: “the configuration information includes a set consisting of decreasing values of the at least one parameter”; [0023]: “the CSI consists of a first part and a second part”; [0014]: “the first part includes a rank indicator (RI), a channel quality indicator (CQI), and an indicator indicating a number of non-zero amplitude coefficients, and wherein the second part includes a precoding matrix indicator (PMI)”; [0015]-[0016]: “the at least one parameter includes at least one of a value for determining a dimension of a compressed coefficient matrix, a number of combining coefficients for calculating the PMI, a size of a fast Fourier transform (FFT), oversampling information, or a number of selected beams among a plurality of beams for calculating the PMI. Furthermore, in the present disclosure, wherein a value of the at least one parameter for reducing the size of the payload of the second part is determined by the UE”; [0330]: “the configuration for S≥1 CSI resource set includes each CSI resource set including CSI-RS resources”; may receive configuration about the set of candidate parameters (size of CSF) to report).
Regarding claim 15, combination of Park and Liao teaches the second device of claim 14 (discussed above).
Park teaches ‘transmit a configuration of the set of candidate numbers of bits’ (Park: [0009]: “receiving configuration information for CSI reporting from the base station, wherein the configuration information includes a plurality of parameters for compressing the CSI”; [0013]: “the configuration information includes a set consisting of decreasing values of the at least one parameter”; [0023]: “the CSI consists of a first part and a second part”; [0014]: “the first part includes a rank indicator (RI), a channel quality indicator (CQI), and an indicator indicating a number of non-zero amplitude coefficients, and wherein the second part includes a precoding matrix indicator (PMI)”; [0015]-[0016]: “the at least one parameter includes at least one of a value for determining a dimension of a compressed coefficient matrix, a number of combining coefficients for calculating the PMI, a size of a fast Fourier transform (FFT), oversampling information, or a number of selected beams among a plurality of beams for calculating the PMI. Furthermore, in the present disclosure, wherein a value of the at least one parameter for reducing the size of the payload of the second part is determined by the UE”; [0330]: “the configuration for S≥1 CSI resource set includes each CSI resource set including CSI-RS resources”; may transmit configuration about the set of candidate parameters (size of CSF) to report).
Per 6, 16 and 28:
Regarding claim 6, combination of Park and Liao teaches the first device of claim 1 (discussed above).
Park teaches ‘based at least in part on receiving, from the second device and after receiving the indication to use the first number of bits, a dynamic indication to use the second number of bits’ (Part: [0380]: “DCI format 0_1 may include a CSI request field and may activate/deactivate a specific configured SP-CSI”; [0382]: “the aperiodic CSI reporting is performed on the PUSCH and is triggered by the DCI”; [0387]: “a PUSCH symbol/slot location is dynamically indicated by the DCI”; may determine CSF report size based at least in part on receiving a dynamic indication).
Regarding claim 16, combination of Park and Liao teaches the second device of claim 11 (discussed above).
Park teaches ‘transmit, after transmitting the indication to use the first number of bits, a dynamic indication to use the second number of bits’ (Part: [0380]: “DCI format 0_1 may include a CSI request field and may activate/deactivate a specific configured SP-CSI”; [0382]: “the aperiodic CSI reporting is performed on the PUSCH and is triggered by the DCI”; [0387]: “a PUSCH symbol/slot location is dynamically indicated by the DCI”; may transmit a dynamic indication about CSF report size after transmitting the indication of the allocated CSF report size).
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 recites the method implemented by the second device of claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above).
Per claim 8, 18, 23 and 29:
Regarding claim 8, combination of Park and Liao teaches the first device of claim 1 (discussed above).
Park teaches ‘transmit an indication that the report uses the second number of bits’ (Park: [FIG.17]: S1730: “UE” to “base station”: “transmitting SRS through the determined TX beam”, base station may estimate channel conditions and CSF report size based on the SRS; [FIG.18]: S1830: “UE” to “base station”: “reporting CSI”; [0599]: “although the UE is configured to reports SB CSI by the base station, when the capacity of a resource configured for CSI reporting is smaller than the size of a payload of CSI to be reported, the UE operates as a WB CSI report and report the WB CSI to the base station”; [0602]: “since a base station may be ambiguous about whether CSI reported by a UE is SB CSI or WB CSI, the CSI may include, in Part 1 CSI, a 1-bit indicator (e.g., 1 bit WB/SB reporting indicator) or flag indicating whether the CSI reported by the UE is SB CSI or WB CSI”; may transmit an indication that CSF report uses a different size).
Regarding claim 18, combination of Park and Liao teaches the second device of claim 11 (discussed above).
Park teaches ‘receive an indication that the report uses the second number of bits’ (Park: [FIG.17]: S1730: “UE” to “base station”: “transmitting SRS through the determined TX beam”, base station may estimate channel conditions and CSF report size based on the SRS; [FIG.18]: S1830: “UE” to “base station”: “reporting CSI”; [0599]: “although the UE is configured to reports SB CSI by the base station, when the capacity of a resource configured for CSI reporting is smaller than the size of a payload of CSI to be reported, the UE operates as a WB CSI report and report the WB CSI to the base station”; [0602]: “since a base station may be ambiguous about whether CSI reported by a UE is SB CSI or WB CSI, the CSI may include, in Part 1 CSI, a 1-bit indicator (e.g., 1 bit WB/SB reporting indicator) or flag indicating whether the CSI reported by the UE is SB CSI or WB CSI”; may receive an indication that CSF report uses a different size).
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 recites the method implemented by the first device of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above).
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 recites the method implemented by the second device of claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above).
Per claim 9, 19 and 24:
Regarding claim 9, combination of Park and Liao teaches the first device of claim 1 (discussed above).
Park teaches ‘transmit an indication of a basis for using the second number of bits instead of the first number of bits’ (Park: [FIG.11]: step S1130: “UE”->”base station”: “beam report (best SSBRI and L1-RSRP)”, transmit an indication of radio condition (a basis); [0602]: “since a base station may be ambiguous about whether CSI reported by a UE is SB CSI or WB CSI, the CSI may include, in Part 1 CSI, a 1-bit indicator (e.g., 1 bit WB/SB reporting indicator) or flag indicating whether the CSI reported by the UE is SB CSI or WB CSI”, [0593]: “some SB CSI (even or odd SB) may be omitted”, indication of whether including SB CSI (a basis); [0603]: “CQI field may be used as an implicit method. If a UE is configured to report an SB CQI, the capacity of a resource configured for CSI reporting may be smaller than a payload of CSI to be reported”, indication of channel condition ( a basis); [0610]: “A UE may omit parameter values of CSI according to a specific rule when the capacity of a resource allocated by a base station is smaller than a calculated size of a payload of CSI”, the omitted parameters would indicate lack of capacity (a basis); [0653]: “when the capacity of a resource allocated for CSI reporting is smaller than the size of a payload of CSI calculated by a UE, the UE can further compress the CSI by reducing a value of a codebook parameter for configuring a time domain or frequency domain compression-based codebook in a value”, the compressed parameters would indicate lack of capacity (a basis); transmit an indication of a basis to use a different CSF report size from the allocated CSF size);
‘wherein the basis for using the second number of bits instead of the first number of bits comprises at least one condition upon which the second number of bits was used instead of the first number of bits’ (Park: [FIG.11]: step S1130: “UE”->”base station”: “beam report (best SSBRI and L1-RSRP)”, indication of radio condition (a basis); [0602]: “since a base station may be ambiguous about whether CSI reported by a UE is SB CSI or WB CSI, the CSI may include, in Part 1 CSI, a 1-bit indicator (e.g., 1 bit WB/SB reporting indicator) or flag indicating whether the CSI reported by the UE is SB CSI or WB CSI”, [0593]: “some SB CSI (even or odd SB) may be omitted”, indication of whether including SB CSI (a basis); [0603]: “CQI field may be used as an implicit method. If a UE is configured to report an SB CQI, the capacity of a resource configured for CSI reporting may be smaller than a payload of CSI to be reported”, indication of channel condition ( a basis); [0610]: “A UE may omit parameter values of CSI according to a specific rule when the capacity of a resource allocated by a base station is smaller than a calculated size of a payload of CSI”, the omitted parameters would indicate lack of capacity (a basis); [0653]: “when the capacity of a resource allocated for CSI reporting is smaller than the size of a payload of CSI calculated by a UE, the UE can further compress the CSI by reducing a value of a codebook parameter for configuring a time domain or frequency domain compression-based codebook in a value”, the compressed parameters would indicate lack of capacity (a basis); an indication of at least one condition to use a different CSF report size from the allocated CSF size).
Regarding claim 19, combination of Park and Liao teaches the second device of claim 11 (discussed above).
Park teaches ‘wherein the basis for using the second number of bits instead of the first number of bits comprises at least one condition upon which the second number of bits was used instead of the first number of bits’ (Park: [FIG.11]: step S1130: “UE”->”base station”: “beam report (best SSBRI and L1-RSRP)”, indication of radio condition (a basis); [0602]: “since a base station may be ambiguous about whether CSI reported by a UE is SB CSI or WB CSI, the CSI may include, in Part 1 CSI, a 1-bit indicator (e.g., 1 bit WB/SB reporting indicator) or flag indicating whether the CSI reported by the UE is SB CSI or WB CSI”, [0593]: “some SB CSI (even or odd SB) may be omitted”, indication of whether including SB CSI (a basis); [0603]: “CQI field may be used as an implicit method. If a UE is configured to report an SB CQI, the capacity of a resource configured for CSI reporting may be smaller than a payload of CSI to be reported”, indication of channel condition ( a basis); [0610]: “A UE may omit parameter values of CSI according to a specific rule when the capacity of a resource allocated by a base station is smaller than a calculated size of a payload of CSI”, the omitted parameters would indicate lack of capacity (a basis); [0653]: “when the capacity of a resource allocated for CSI reporting is smaller than the size of a payload of CSI calculated by a UE, the UE can further compress the CSI by reducing a value of a codebook parameter for configuring a time domain or frequency domain compression-based codebook in a value”, the compressed parameters would indicate lack of capacity (a basis); an indication of at least one condition to use a different CSF report size from the allocated CSF size).
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 recites the method implemented by the first device of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above).
Per claim 10 and 25:
Regarding claim 10, combination of Park and Liao teaches the first device of claim 9 (discussed above).
Park teaches ‘receive, based at least in part on the one or more conditions, an updated configuration for reporting the CSF’ (Park: [FIG.13]: S1320: “receiving CSI resource(s) configured as repetition ‘ON’ through identical Tx beam”, updated configuration after configuration at S1310; [FIG.14]: S1420: “receiving CSI resource(s) configured as repetition ‘OFF’ through different Tx beam”, updated configuration after configuration at S1410; [FIG.17]: S1740: “feedback”; [0270]-[0272]: “a feedback for the SRS from the BS like three following cases (S1740) … This case as a usage of selecting the Rx beam by the BS corresponds to FIG. 16(a) … this case as a usage of sweeping the Tx beam by the UE corresponds to FIG. 16(b)”; may receive an updated configuration for reporting the CSF based at least in part on the one or more conditions).
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 recites the method implemented by the first device of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above).
Regarding claim 31, combination of Park and Liao teaches the second device of claim 1 (discussed above).
Park teaches ‘transmit, to the second device, an indication that the CSI is temporally encoded’ (Park: [0602]: “since a base station may be ambiguous about whether CSI reported by a UE is SB CSI or WB CSI, the CSI may include, in Part 1 CSI, a 1-bit indicator (e.g., 1 bit WB/SB reporting indicator) or flag indicating whether the CSI reported by the UE is SB CSI or WB CSI”, a flag to indicate CSI is temporally encoded (a CSI change)).
Regarding claim 33, combination of Park and Liao teaches the first device of claim 1 (discussed above).
Combination of Park and Liao teaches ‘cause the first device to identify an encoder for the CSF in accordance with a reconstruction quality or an uplink budget’ (Park: [0656]: “when the capacity of a resource configured for CSI reporting is smaller than a payload calculated based on a plurality of configured codebook parameters, the UE may calculate and/or determine a plurality of codebook parameters that is the most optimized and satisfy the capacity”; [0507]: “The Type II CSI increases the accuracy of CSI, but has a problem in that a payload of the CSI is greatly increased. Accordingly, in order to solve such a problem, there are proposed codebook designs for reducing the size of a payload and almost preventing the degradation of performance”; [0594]: “CSI is reported using the time domain or frequency domain compression method”; [0487]: “Type II CSI feedback … Parts 1 and 2 are encoded separately”; compress (encode) CSI based on the quality (the most optimized) and available capacity for CSI report (uplink budget). Liao: [Table 3]: different encoders: “DCT”, PCA”, “CsiNet”, “Proposed algorithm”; [Page 16, Col 1]: “The NMSE is the difference between the recovered
PNG
media_image1.png
35
30
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and the original H, and it is dened as
PNG
media_image2.png
53
529
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where the smaller the NMSE, the smaller the channel compression feedback error and the better the performance … the proposed DL-based CSI feedback algorithm has excellent NMSE performance. This algorithm can recover CSI more accurately and improve the quality of the recovered CS signicantly”, reconstruction quality).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Liao’s teaching of NMSE with that of Park in order to recover CSI more accurately (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 34, combination of Park and Liao teaches the first device of claim 1 (discussed above).
Combination of Park and Liao teaches ‘perform a first extraction operation and a first compression operation for a first feature of data used to generate the report indicating the CSF’ (Park: [0581]: “Frequency Domain Compression”; [0582]-[0609]: extract and compress frequency domain components (features); [0901]: “the components and the features of the present invention are combined in a predetermined form. Each component or feature should be considered as an option unless otherwise expressly stated”. Liao: [Page 15]: “CNN networks to extract frequency feature vectors”; [Page 12, Col 2]: “this network extracts the feature vectors through two 2D CNN or 3D CNN, and then compresses the parameters to be estimated through the 2D Maxpooling or 3D Maxpooling layer”;);
‘perform a second extraction operation and a second compression operation for a second feature of the data used to generate the report indicating the CSF’ (Park: [0513]: “Time Domain Compression”; [0514]-[0580]: extract and compress time domain components (features). Liao: [Page 13, Col 2]: “For CSI feedback, each time step of the Bi- LSTM and Bi-ConvLSTM network … Considering the correlation between antennas in massive MIMO systems, Bi-LSTM and Bi-ConvLSTM networks are designed to predict CSI using correlation between antennas in massive MIMO systems”; [Page 11, Col 2]: “the network has many training parameters, and only convolutional layers and fully connected layers are used to extract the features of the data to complete CSI compression and recovery, the spatial correlation between antennas is not fully utilized in massive MIMO system … In compression process, the proposed algorithm uses two two-dimensional (2D) CNN and two three-dimensional (3D) CNN networks to learn the non-linear structural characteristics of the channel and extract the channel feature vectors accurately for single-user and multi-user respectively. Then, the outputs of 2D CNN and 3D CNN can be reduced by using 2D Maxpooling network and 3D Maxpooling network respectively, which can effectively compress the data.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Liao’s teaching of Bi-LSTM and Bi-ConvLSTM with that of Park in order to recover spatial correlation between antennas (see reference quotes in element above).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Park and Liao, in view of Coenen et al. (US 20210287074 A1), hereinafter “Coenen”.
Per claim 7 and 17:
Regarding claim 7, combination of Park and Liao teaches the first device of claim 1 (discussed above).
Park teaches ‘based at least in part on a capability of the first device to store weights’ (Park: [0653]: “when the capacity of a resource allocated for CSI reporting is smaller than the size of a payload of CSI calculated by a UE, the UE can further compress the CSI by reducing a value of a codebook parameter for configuring a time domain or frequency domain compression-based codebook in a value or set of values configured based on UE capability, according to a specific rule”; [0655]: “When the size of a payload of the derived CSI is greater than the capacity of a resource allocated for CSI reporting for the UE, the UE may reduce a value of a codebook parameter for configuring a codebook in a value or set of values configured based on the UE capability, according to a specific rule”; [0659]: “Ki is a K value set in CSI reporting i, which may be set as a maximum value or a set of K values configured by a base station based on the capability of a UE”; [0726]: “the K value may be set as {2,3,4} (based on a UE capability)”; [0747]: “K is a parameter affecting a compression capability”; [0845]: “The memory 104 may connected to the processor 102 and store various information related to an operation”; [0867]: “The memory unit 130 may store data that supporting various functions of the AI apparatus”; [0869]: “The learning processor unit 140c may train a model composed of an artificial neural network … information stored in the memory”; [0872]: “The model storage 431 may store a model (or artificial neural network … the learning model may be stored in the memory”). However, combination of Park and Liao fails to expressly teach store weights.
Coenen in the same field of endeavor teaches store encoder weights of the neural network (Coenen: [0005]: “a weight memory configured to store encoded weights for the neural network”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Coenen’s teaching with that of combination of Park and Liao to determine to use the second number of bits based at least in part on a capability of the first device to store one or more encoder weights in order to compress CSI according to the available weight memory of the device.
Regarding claim 17, combination of Park and Liao teaches the second device of claim 11 (discussed above).
Park teaches ‘transmit configuration information that indicates that the first device is to determine to use the second number of bits based at least in part on a capability of the first device to store one or more encoder weights of one or more neural networks’ (Park: [FIG.18]: S1810: “base station” to “UE”: “CSI related configuration information”; [0653]: “when the capacity of a resource allocated for CSI reporting is smaller than the size of a payload of CSI calculated by a UE, the UE can further compress the CSI by reducing a value of a codebook parameter for configuring a time domain or frequency domain compression-based codebook in a value or set of values configured based on UE capability, according to a specific rule”; [0655]: “When the size of a payload of the derived CSI is greater than the capacity of a resource allocated for CSI reporting for the UE, the UE may reduce a value of a codebook parameter for configuring a codebook in a value or set of values configured based on the UE capability, according to a specific rule”; [0659]: “Ki is a K value set in CSI reporting i, which may be set as a maximum value or a set of K values configured by a base station based on the capability of a UE”; [0726]: “the K value may be set as {2,3,4} (based on a UE capability)”; [0747]: “K is a parameter affecting a compression capability”; [0845]: “The memory 104 may connected to the processor 102 and store various information related to an operation”; [0867]: “The memory unit 130 may store data that supporting various functions of the AI apparatus”; [0869]: “The learning processor unit 140c may train a model composed of an artificial neural network … information stored in the memory”; [0872]: “The model storage 431 may store a model (or artificial neural network … the learning model may be stored in the memory”). However, combination of Park and Liao fails to expressly teach store one or more encoder weights of one or more neural networks.
Coenen in the same field of endeavor teaches store encoder weights of the neural network (Coenen: [0005]: “a weight memory configured to store encoded weights for the neural network”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Coenen’s teaching with that of combination of Park and Liao to transmit configuration information that indicates that the first device is to determine to use the second number of bits based at least in part on a capability of the first device to store one or more encoder weights of one or more neural networks in order to compress CSI according to the available weight memory of the device.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Park and Liao as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Gibson et al. (“Preposterior Analysis for Differential Encoder Design”), hereinafter “Gibson”.
Regarding claim 32, combination of Park and Liao teaches the second device of claim 1 (discussed above).
Combination of Park and Liao teaches ‘perform differential encoding of one or more encoder weights used to generate the CSF’ (Park: [0146]: “Feedback of Channel State Information (CSI)”. Liao: [FIGURE 3. Data flow in the proposed massive MIMO CSI feedback network]: “Compression process”; [Page 13, Col 1]: “COMPRESSION PROCESS … W1,s and W2,s are the weights”). However, combination of Park and Liao fails to expressly teach perform differential encoding.
Gibson in the same field of endeavor teaches differential encoding (Gibson: [Abstract]: “differential encoding”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Gibson’s teaching with that of combination of Park and Liao to perform differential encoding of one or more encoder weights used to generate the CSF in order to achieve optimal design of a differential encoder for data compression (Gibson: [Page 381, Col 1]: “Preposterior analysis, first proposed for data compression in [9], has been investigated for the optimal design a new differential encoder structure”).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Park and Liao as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Harada et al. (US 20230076328 A1), hereinafter “Harada”.
Regarding claim 35, combination of Park and Liao teaches the first device of claim 1 (discussed above).
Park teaches ‘wherein the set of candidate numbers of bits is received in a configuration via radio resource control (RRC) signaling’ (Park: [FIG.18]: “base station” -> “UE”: “CSI related configuration information”; [0280]: “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”). However, combination of Park and Liao fails to expressly teach RRC signaling includes the set of candidate number of bits.
Harada in the same field of endeavor teaches Base Station can configure candidate values for the size of HARQ-ACK codebook by using RRC signaling (Harada: [0117]: “The base station 20 may, for example, set candidate values for the size of the HARQ-ACK codebook by using RRC signaling”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Harada’s teaching with that of combination of Park and Liao in order to match a recognition on a size of a HARQ-ACK codebook between a base station and a terminal (Harada: [0017]: “A technique is provided that is for matching a recognition on a size of a HARQ-ACK codebook between a base station and a terminal”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GUOXING FAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571)272-3927. 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.
/G.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2462
/YEMANE MESFIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights