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 .
Applicant elects Group II (including Claims 18-20), drawn to a method of designating an artificial intelligence model mapped to a training set identifier (TSI) and training the artificial intelligence model mapped to TSI based on a received signal, as set forth in the outstanding Election/Restriction Requirement.
Claims 1-17 have been cancelled. Claims 18-20 remain pending for examination in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/30/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chai et al. (US 20240211770 A1), hereinafter referred to as Chai.
Regarding claim 18:
Chai discloses an operation method of a terminal in a communication system (method of performing model training by a terminal [0097]), comprising:
receiving, from a base station, training set identifier (TSI) configuration information including at least one TSI (receiving, from base station, indication information of three training sets, each of which includes pieces of training data [0099]);
designating an artificial intelligence model mapped to the at least one TSI according to the TSI configuration information (designing artificial intelligence {AI} model based on training data configured by base station [0087]);
receiving, from the base station, training indication information including the at least one TSI (receiving, from base station, information on training data [0003]) ;
receiving, from the base station, a signal including the at least one TSI (receiving, from base station, a reference signal that is used to generate N pieces of training data [0115]); and
training the artificial intelligence model mapped to the at least one TSI based on the received signal (performing model/ AI training based on N pieces of training data based on reference signals, e.g., DMRS, CSI-RS, .. [0115]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to train the AI model mapped to the at least one TSI based on the received signal; thus meeting increasingly diversified services requirements (Chai [0002]) by designing different AI models having different functions and usages based on different types of training data (Chai [0086]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chai, as applied to claim 18 above, in view of Kim (US 20230344505 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kim.
Regarding claim 19:
Chai discloses all features of claim 18, and –
Chai further discloses the at least one TSI is mapped to at least one physical channel (training data are generated from physical downlink data channel [0115, lines 26-37]).
Also, Chai discolses that AI model can be applied to beam management or prediction scenario [0115, lines 26-37].
Chai does not explicitly disclose TSI is mapped to one physical channel in one beam direction; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Kim’s disclosure as below.
Kim, from the same field of endeavor, discloses receiving channels and signals, e.g., PDSCH, CSI-RS, DMRS, etc., in Rx beam directions [0288].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to map TSI to physical channel in one beam direction; thus efficiently performing a specific operation, e.g., channel estimation, by using proper training data Kim [0085-0086].
Regarding claim 20:
Chai discloses all features of claim 18, and –
Chai further discloses wherein the at least one TSI is mapped to at least one reference signal (training data are generated from reference signal [0115, lines 1-22]).
Also, Chai discolses that AI model can be applied to beam management or prediction scenario [0115, lines 26-37].
Chai does not explicitly disclose TSI is mapped to one reference signal in one beam direction; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Kim’s disclosure as below.
Kim, from the same field of endeavor, discloses receiving channels and signals, e.g., PDSCH, CSI-RS, DMRS, etc., in Rx beam directions [0288].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to map TSI to a reference signal in a beam direction; thus efficiently performing a specific operation, e.g., channel estimation, by using proper training data Kim [0085-0086].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pezeshki (US 20210345131 A1 [0028, 0088, 0152]) and
Xiao (US 20240413884 A1 [0058, 0084, 0088]) --
are all cited to show that training the AI model mapped to the at least one TSI based on the received signal – would meet increasingly diversified services requirements by designing different AI models having different functions and usages based on different types of training data – similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMQUYEN THAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7245. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and videoconferencing 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, Ayman A. Abaza, can be reached at 571-270-0422. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.Q.T./
/AYMAN A ABAZA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights