DETAILED ACTION
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.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments, filed 07/16/25, with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claims 1-116 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 15, 17-20, 28, 30-34, 44, 46-49, 57, 59-63, 73, 75-78, 86, 88-92, 102, 104-107 and 115 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shrestha et al. (U.S. 20230296722).
For claim 1, Shrestha et al. disclose a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising:
obtaining, from one or more sensors, sensor data (at least [0092]; claim 1 and 11. A method performed by a wireless communication device configured for use in a wireless communication network, the method comprising: obtaining backscattering measurements for the one or more uplink transmissions; and reporting the backscattering measurements to the wireless communication network. The backscattering measurements for the one or more uplink transmissions are obtained using a different set of at least one antenna element or antenna panel than used for the transmission of the one or more uplink transmissions.)
identifying, based on the sensor data, a first context scenario associated with a surrounding environment of the UE or a user status (at least [0037]; [0048]-[0051]; claim 1; and claim 11. A method performed by a wireless communication device configured for use in a wireless communication network, the method comprising: obtaining backscattering measurements for the one or more uplink transmissions; and reporting the backscattering measurements to the wireless communication network. The backscattering measurements comprise one or more of: a backscattered signal received power; ranging information indicative of a distance between the wireless communication device an object in a vicinity of the wireless communication device; and doppler shift of a backscattered signal. The WCD may for example performs filtering of the backscattered/reflected signals to extract only measurements of interest.);
transmitting, to a network node, an indication of the first context scenario (at least [0048]-[0051]; claim 1; and claim 11. A method performed by a network node in a wireless communication network, the method comprising: receiving backscattering measurements for one or more uplink transmissions, the backscattering measurements having been obtained by a wireless communication device that transmitted the one or more uplink transmissions; and estimating an environment of the wireless communication device based on the backscattering measurements.);
receiving, from the network node in response to the indication, a first configuration for the first context scenario, wherein the first configuration comprises scheduling information and a reference signal resource allocation (at least [0037]-[0051] and claim 16. Scheduling a transmission based on the estimated environment of the wireless communication device; Selecting beamforming based on the estimated environment of the wireless communication device and adapting a positioning reference signal configuration based on the estimated environment of the wireless communication device.); and
communicating with the network node based on the first configuration (at least [0048]-[0051]; claim 1; and claim 11. Scheduling 404 a transmission based on the estimated environment of the WCD. The scheduled transmission may for example be a downlink transmission to the WCD or an uplink transmission from the WCD. Scheduling may for example be adapted to the environment of the WCD in the sense that a frequency resource and/or a time resource and/or a coding and/or a transmission scheme and/or a transmission power of a transmission is adapted based on the environment.)
For claim 2, Shrestha et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors comprises at least one of a camera, a microphone, a global positioning system (GPS), an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, or a biometric sensor (at least [0092]. The backscattering from these custom signals may for example be measured using onboard sensors like lidars, proximity-sensors, etc., and a measurement report comprising such measurement may be transmitted from the WCD to the LS.)
For claim 3, Shrestha et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the identifying comprises identifying the first context scenario from a set of context scenarios (at least [0037]-[0047]. The WCD may perform measurements on such received reflected versions of the one or more uplink transmissions, to obtain measurement values. Measurements performed on such reflected signals or reflected transmissions are referred to herein as backscattering measurements. The WCD may for example performs filtering of the backscattered/reflected signals to extract only measurements of interest. The backscattering measurements may for example comprise a backscattered signal received power, and/or ranging information indicative of a distance between the wireless communication device an object in a vicinity of the wireless communication device, and/or doppler shift of a backscattered signal.)
For claim 4, Shrestha et al. disclose the method of claim 3, wherein the set of context scenarios is associated with at least one of a user location, a user activity status, or a user health status (at least [0037]-[0047The backscattering measurements may for example comprise a backscattered signal received power, and/or ranging information indicative of a distance between the wireless communication device an object in a vicinity of the wireless communication device, and/or doppler shift of a backscattered signal.)
For claim 5, Shrestha et al. disclose the method of claim 4, wherein the user location comprises at least one of a home, an office, a vehicle, a transit path between a first place and a second place, or a public gathering place (at least [0105]. The WCD performing the method 1300 may for example be arranged at a vehicle, such as a car, a truck, a motorcycle, a bicycle, or a drone.)
For claim 15, Shrestha et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the receiving the first configuration comprises: receiving the first configuration indicating at least one of a channel scan operation, an operational mode switch, or an initiation of an application (at least [0053] and [0105]. The method 1300 may optionally comprise transmitting 1307 one or more signals for controlling the vehicle based on the estimated environment of the WCD. In other words, the WCD may at least partially control the vehicle via one or more signals generated/determined based on the estimated environment of the WCD. The one or more signals controlling the vehicle may for example be generated/determined based on the estimated environment of the WCD and the estimated position of the WCD.)
For claim 17-20, the claims have features similar to claims 1-5. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reason in claims 1-5.
For claim 28, the claim has features similar to claim 15. Therefore, the claim is also rejected for the same reason in claim 15.
For claim 30-34, the claims have features similar to claims 1-5. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reason in claims 1-5.
For claim 44, the claim has features similar to claim 15. Therefore, the claim is also rejected for the same reason in claim 15.
For claim 46-49, the claims have features similar to claims 1-5. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reason in claims 1-5.
For claim 57, the claim has features similar to claim 15. Therefore, the claim is also rejected for the same reason in claim 15.
For claim 59-63, the claims have features similar to claims 1-5. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reason in claims 1-5.
For claim 73, the claim has features similar to claim 15. Therefore, the claim is also rejected for the same reason in claim 15.
For claim 75-78, the claims have features similar to claims 1-5. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reason in claims 1-5.
For claim 86, the claim has features similar to claim 15. Therefore, the claim is also rejected for the same reason in claim 15.
For claim 88-92, the claims have features similar to claims 1-5. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reason in claims 1-5.
For claim 102, the claim has features similar to claim 15. Therefore, the claim is also rejected for the same reason in claim 15.
For claim 104-107, the claims have features similar to claims 1-5. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reason in claims 1-5.
For claim 115, the claim has features similar to claim 15. Therefore, the claim is also rejected for the same reason in claim 15.
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 of this title, 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 6-7, 35-36, 64-65 and 93-94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrestha et al. (U.S. 20230296722) in view of Stave et al. (U.S. 20240370745).
For claim 6, Shrestha et al. do not disclose the method of claim 3, wherein the identifying further comprises: applying a machine learning-based network to the sensor data, wherein the machine learning-based network is trained to identify a context scenario from the set of context scenarios.
In the same field of endeavor, Stave et al. disclose applying a machine learning-based network to the sensor data, wherein the machine learning-based network is trained to identify a context scenario from the set of context scenarios (at least claim 4. One or more machine-learning models is trained to only recognize one of the incident-prediction model features of the set of incident-prediction model features.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Shrestha et al. as taught by Stave et al. for purpose of managing application incidents.
For claim 7, the combination of Shrestha et al. and Stave et al. disclose the method of claim 6. Stave et al. disclose wherein the identifying further comprises: applying the machine learning-based network including a convolutional network to the sensor data (at least [0009]. In conventional approaches, subsequent to the occurrence of an incident in connection with a given application, a myopic analysis is conducted in which only data that is related to that particular application is assessed. Unlike those conventional approaches, embodiments of the present disclosure take an ecosystem-wide view that encompasses multiple interoperating applications and systems, and leverages the power of machine learning to predict and prevent the occurrence of application incidents.)
For claim 35-36, the claims have features similar to claims 6-7. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reason in claims 6-7.
For claim 64-65, the claims have features similar to claims 6-7. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reason in claims 6-7.
For claim 93-94, the claims have features similar to claims 6-7. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reason in claims 6-7.
Claims 9-14, 21-27, 38-43, 50-56, 67-72, 79-85, 96-101 and 108-114 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrestha et al. (U.S. 20230296722) in view of Hong (U.S. 20230232213).
For claim 9, Shrestha et al. do not disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting, to the network node, a context scenario recognition capability report.
In the same field of endeavor, Hong discloses transmitting, to the BS, a context scenario recognition capability report (at least [0007]. Reporting artificial intelligence (AI) capability information indicating an AI capability of the UE to a base station.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Shrestha et al. as taught by Hong for purpose of improving information interaction between the UE and the base station and increasing the transparency of the UE capability information.
For claim 10, the combination of Shrestha et al. and Hong disclose the method of claim 9. Hong discloses the transmitting the context scenario recognition capability report comprises: transmitting the context scenario recognition capability report including a value indicating whether context scenario recognition is supported or not supported (at least [0041], [0050]-[0051] and [0087]. Reporting the AI capability information indicating an identifier of the on-device AI model supported by the UE to the base station.)
For claim 11, the combination of Shrestha et al. and Hong disclose the method of claim 9. Hong discloses the wherein the transmitting the context scenario recognition capability report comprises: transmitting the context scenario recognition capability report including a context scenario recognition level (at least [0053], [0081] and [0088]. Each on-device AI model has a unique identifier, and the UE may indicate an on-device AI model that it has in a manner of uploading the identifier.)
For claim 12, the combination of Shrestha et al. and Hong disclose the method of claim 11. Hong discloses the further comprising: determining the context scenario recognition level based on at least one of a sensor capability associated with the one or more sensors or a machine learning-based network capability (at least [0053], [0081] and [0117]. Each on-device AI model has a unique identifier, and the UE may indicate an on-device AI model that it has in a manner of uploading the identifier.)
For claim 13, the combination of Shrestha et al. and Hong disclose the method of claim 12. Hong discloses the wherein the machine learning-based network capability is associated with at least one of a convolutional layer processing capability, a time sequence predictive capability, or a computational capability (at least [0053], [0081] and [0117]. AI capability may be a capability that the UE performs AI-related data computation or an AI function that the UE possesses. The reported AI capability may include: whether the UE has an AI capability, and/or, an AI data processing rate of the UE, such as a computing capability of a processor, and/or, an amount of AI data processable by the UE, and/or, an AI model supported by the UE, and/or, a computing capability of the UE for a specific AI algorithm and the like.)
For claim 14, the combination of Shrestha et al. and Hong disclose the method of claim 9. Hong discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising: receiving, from the BS in response to the context scenario recognition capability report, at least one set of context scenarios including the first context scenario (at least [0115]. An AI service corresponding to the AI capability is allocated to the UE based on the AI capability information.)
For claim 21-26, the claims have features similar to claims 9-14. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reason in claims 9-14.
For claim 27, the claim has features similar to claim 14. Therefore, the claim is also rejected for the same reason in claim 14.
For claim 38-43, the claims have features similar to claims 9-14. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reason in claims 9-14.
For claim 50-55, the claims have features similar to claims 9-14. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reason in claims 9-14.
For claim 56, the claim has features similar to claim 14. Therefore, the claim is also rejected for the same reason in claim 14.
For claim 67-72, the claims have features similar to claims 9-14. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reason in claims 9-14.
For claim 79-84, the claims have features similar to claims 9-14. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reason in claims 9-14.
For claim 85, the claim has features similar to claim 14. Therefore, the claim is also rejected for the same reason in claim 14.
For claim 96-101, the claims have features similar to claims 9-14. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reason in claims 9-14.
For claim 108-114, the claims have features similar to claims 9-14. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reason in claims 9-14.
Claims 16, 29, 45, 58, 74, 87, 103 and 116 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrestha et al. (U.S. 20230296722) in view of Teyeb et al. (U.S. 20220264620).
For claim 16, Shrestha et al. do not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the receiving the first configuration comprises: receiving, in response to the indication of the first context scenario, an indication to switch from a second configuration associated with a second context scenario to the first configuration.
In the same field of endeavor, Teyeb et al. disclose the receiving the first configuration comprises: receiving, in response to the indication of the first context scenario, an indication to switch from a second configuration associated with a second context scenario to the first configuration (at least [0131]-[0132]. The UE transmits the capability response message 822 to the network node 804. UE 802 receives (step s708) a control message 824 (e.g., RRCConnectionRelease) transmitted by network node 804, wherein the control message includes a dedicated measurement configuration for configuring the UE to perform measurements while in an IDLE state. Process 700 may further include step s710 in which UE 802 enters the IDLE state in response to receiving the control message, and, while in the IDLE state, the UE performs a measurement in accordance with the dedicated measurement configuration.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Shrestha et al. as taught by Teyeb et al. for purpose of measuring during IDLE or IDLE with suspended mode or INACTIVE mode, etc.
For claims 29, 45, 58, 74, 87, 103 and 116, the claims have features similar to claim 16. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reason in claim 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 37, 66 and 95 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAI PHUONG whose telephone number is 571-272-7896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached on 571-270-5371. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-7687.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DAI PHUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644