DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the RCE filed 22 June 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 June 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 6, 7, 4, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For Claim 3 (line 2), Claim 6, Claim 14 (line 4), Claim 17, the antecedent basis of “the reporting” is not clear. The independent claim recites two reporting steps.
For Claim 7 (last line), Claim 18 (last line), the reporting step appears to be redundant to the second reporting step in the independent claim. If not, the claim should be amended to distinguish the reporting step.
For Claim 16 (penultimate line), “include” should possibly be amended to ---including---.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-14, and 20, as understood in light of any rejections under 35 USC 112, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madadi et al. (US 2022/0338189) in view of Ma et al. (US 2023/0284139).
For Claims 1, 12, and 20, Madadi teaches a method performed by at least one processor of a user equipment (UE), a user equipment (UE) comprising: at least one memory configured to store computer program code; and at least one processor configured to access said at least one memory and operate as instructed by the computer program code (see paragraphs 8, 96), and a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored therein (see paragraph 18); the method comprising:
receiving a set of resources from a base station (see abstract, paragraphs 6, 106, 110, and 125);
performing a first measuring of the set of resources based on a legacy mode that does not use an artificial intelligence machine learning (AI/ML) model to produce a first output (see paragraphs 1, 110-111, 116, 132);
performing a second measuring of the set of resources based on the AI/ML model to produce a second output (see paragraphs 110-111, 116, and 131-132);
reporting, to the base station, results corresponding to the first output and the second output (see paragraphs 116-117, 132; also Figure 4 item 404, Figure 6 item 604).
Madadi as applied above is not explicit as to, but Ma teaches receiving, from the base station during a first transmission mode, a first transmission using a first transmission parameter determined based on the first output, the first transmission not using a second transmission parameter determined based on the second output (see paragraph 269: indication to switch to AI mode; see paragraphs 265-266, 19, 341-347: based on output provided in non-AI mode, respectively different outputs); and
receiving, from the base station during a second transmission mode, a second transmission using the second transmission parameter determined based on the second output, the second transmission not using the first transmission parameter ((see paragraph 270: indication to switch to non-AI mode; see paragraphs 265-266, 19, 341-347: based on output provided in AI mode, respectively different outputs);
determining a first set of key performance indicators (KPIs) corresponding to the first transmission mode (see paragraphs 16, 269-270, 275);
determining a second set of KPIs corresponding to the second transmission mode (see paragraphs 16, 269-270, 275); and
reporting the first set of KPIs and the second set of KPIs to the base station for comparison (see paragraphs 16, 269-270, 275; also see abstract, paragraphs 9 and 273: switching between modes based on KPIs).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use the KPIs as in Ma when evaluating performance of different modes as in Madadi. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of balancing performance and resource usage based on network conditions.
For Claims 2 and 13, Madadi teaches the method,
wherein the set of resources from the base station includes one or more channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) resources (see abstract, paragraphs 6, 106, 110, 131-132),
wherein the first output is an estimated CSI (see paragraphs 67, 118, 125), and
wherein the second output is another estimated CSI obtained from the input of compressed version of the one or more CSI-RS resources (see paragraphs 108, 132).
For Claims 3 and 14, Madadi as applied above is not explicit as to, but Ma teaches the method, further comprising:
based on the reporting:
receiving, from the base station during the first transmission mode, the first transmission using a first modulation coding scheme (MCS) determined based on the first output (see paragraphs 276, 310-315, Table 2);
receiving, from the base station during the second transmission mode, the second transmission using a second MCS determined based on the second output (see paragraphs 276, 310-315, Table 2).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify parameters as in Ma when processing communications in different modes as in Madadi. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of balancing performance and resource usage based on network conditions.
For Claim 9, Madadi teaches the method, further comprising:
receiving, from the base station, a measurement activation signal (see paragraph 110); and
performing the first measuring and the second measuring based on the reception of the measurement activation signal (see paragraphs 110-111, 132).
For Claim 10, Madadi teaches the method,
wherein the reporting of the results corresponding to the first output and the second output is performed at a predetermined timing (see paragraphs 13, 15, 107, 110-111: aperiodic, semi-persistent), and
wherein the first measuring and the second measuring are performed at a timing in accordance with the predetermined timing (see paragraphs 115-116).
For Claim 11, Madadi teaches the method, further comprising:
receiving, from the base station, an indication of which AI/ML model to use from a plurality of AI/ML models for the second measuring (see abstract, paragraphs 107, 129).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 8, 15, and 20 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.
Claims 6, 7, and 16-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s submission of 22 June 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection introduced herein. Claims 1-3, 9-14, and 20 remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tang et al. (US 2023/0328758) teaches indicating MCS for AI and non-AI communication modes. Duan et al. (US 2024/0430843) teaches determining ToA from Channel Impulse Response.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSANDRA L DECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3946. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/CASSANDRA L DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2466 7/16/2026
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights