DETAILED ACTION
RCE
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Remark
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 01/29/26.
Independent claims have been amended.
Claims 2, 3, 14, 15, 17, 23, and 24 have been canceled.
New claims 35-37 have been added.
The previous 103 rejection over Mu in view of Wang has been replaced with a new 103 rejection over Mu in view of Wang and Jeon.
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 1, 4-6, 9-13, 16, 18, 19, 22, 25-33 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu et al. (US 2025/0219698, “Mu”) in view of Wang et al. (US 2025/0016774, “Wang”) and further in view of Jeon (US 2024/0340054, “Jeon”; Provisional 63/457,276, hereinafter “Jeon’prov”).
Regarding claim 1, Mu discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising:
- one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, individually or collectively configured to (See Fig.13, a processor and a memory in a UE):
- receive, from a network node via a group-specific downlink control information (DCI) (See ¶.51-52, an information field of the switching instruction is defined in the DCI, so that the terminal receives the DCI sent by the network device and obtains the switching instruction from the information field in the DCI. [0052] In step 220, a first CSI processing mode is switched to a second CSI processing mode based on the switching instruction; Examiner’s Note: Jeon discloses the limitation “a group-specific DCI”) signaling indicating a transition from a first type of channel state information (CSI) processing to a second type of CSI processing at the UE (See 210 Fig.2 and 330 Fig.4, UE receives a switching instruction sent by a network device for two different type of CSI processing modes), wherein the first type of CSI processing is a first machine-learning-based CIS processing type associated with a first type of CSI feedback (See ¶.5, after determining that a terminal has AI-based CSI processing capabilities, the network will default to the terminal always performing CSI feedback based on AI) and the second type of CSI processing is a second machine-learning-based CSI processing type associated with a second type of CSI feedback (See ¶.5, after determining that a terminal has AI-based CSI processing capabilities, the network will default to the terminal always performing CSI feedback based on AI; See ¶.10, indicate the network device to process CSI feedback information of the terminal based on the second CSI processing mode; See ¶.50, perform the current CSI feedback according to the CSI processing mode indicated by the switching instruction; See ¶.54, the first CSI processing mode is an AI-based CSI processing mode, and the second CSI processing mode is an AI-based CSI processing mode; See 620 Fig.7 and ¶.115, the terminal sends CSI feedback information to the network device, where the feedback information carries indication information of the second CSI processing mode used by the terminal; Examiner’s Note: Mu discloses AI and Wang further discloses the limitation “machine-learning-based”); and
- transition from the first type of CSI processing to the second type of CSI processing in accordance with the signaling and a timeline for the transition (See 340 Fig.4, 510 Fig.6, and 610 Fig.7, switch from a first CSI processing mode to a second CSI processing mode; See ¶.49, perform CSI feedback according to the CSI processing mode indicated by the switching instruction within a period of time; Examiner’s Note: Wang discloses the limitation “a timeline for the transition”).
Mu discloses the method of performing CSI feedback according to the CSI processing mode indicated by the switching instruction within a period of time (See ¶.49) and Wang further explicitly discloses the limitation “a timeline for the transition (Wang, See Fig.6 and ¶.130, the terminal equipment may feedback ACK or send a message to the network device for ensuring the timing. With the stop timing, the network device stops its AI/ML and the terminal equipment stops its AI/ML, and the network device and the terminal equipment switch to use non-AI/ML based method).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply “a timeline for the transition” as taught by Wang into the system of Mu, so that it provides a way of switching to a second CSI processing mode within a period of time (Mu, See ¶.49; Wang, See ¶.130).
Mu discloses DCI including a switching instruction and Wang discloses DCI including timing information to de-active the operations realized by the first AI/ML module or/or the second AI/ML module (Wang, See Fig.6 and ¶.126, and ¶.148), but do not explicitly disclose the newly added limitations “via a group-specific DCI.”
However, Jeon discloses “receiving from a network node via a group-specific DCI (Jeon, See ¶.222, gNB to provide a UE-group-specific signaling for providing an indication to UEs for CSI measurement and report; See ¶.225, DCI providing a CSI report early indication (CEI) can be UE-specific, UE-group-specific, or cell-specific; See ¶.231, a UE can monitor PDCCH to detect a DCI format providing an indication for CSI-RS measurement and CSI reporting according to a CSS set (UE-group-specific) or a USS set (UE-specific); Jeon’prov, See pg.26, Fig.12,
PNG
media_image1.png
224
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See pg.21, ¶.6, The network may want to collect CSI from a group of UEs sharing a certain property such as those in a particular beam direction or a cell coverage range to facilitate more tailored SD/PD adaptations. Therefore, there is another need for designing an efficient UE-group-specific signaling such as using DCI for providing early indications for CSI measurement and report; See pg.23, ¶.6, Method and apparatus for a gNB to provide a UE-group-specific signaling for providing an indication to UEs for CSI measurement and report; pg.24, ¶.1, For example, a UE can monitor PDCCH to detect a DCI format providing an indication for CSI-RS measurement and CSI reporting according to a CSS set (UE-group-specific) or a USS set (UE-specific)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “receiving from a network node via a group-specific DCI” as taught by Jeon into the system of Mu and Wang, so that it provides a way for a UE to monitor PDCCH to detect a DCI format providing an indication for CSI-RS measurement and CSI reporting according to UE-group-specific (Jeon’prov, See pg.24, ¶.1).
Regarding claim 4, Mu and Wang disclose “the signaling is based on a transition of a network energy saving state (Mu, See ¶.101, saving signaling resources; Wang, See ¶.146, the network device want to save power).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Mu discloses the method of performing CSI feedback according to the CSI processing mode indicated by the switching instruction within a period of time (See ¶.49) and Wang further discloses “the timeline indicates a length of time between reception of the signaling and the transition (Wang, See Fig.6 and ¶.130, the terminal equipment may feedback ACK or send a message to the network device for ensuring the timing. With the stop timing, the network device stops its AI/ML and the terminal equipment stops its AI/ML, and the network device and the terminal equipment switch to use non-AI/ML based method).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Mu does not explicitly disclose what Wang discloses “the length of time comprises a number of symbols after a last symbol of a channel for transmission of an acknowledgement of the signaling (Wang, See ¶.130, the terminal equipment may feedback ACK or send a message to the network device for ensuring the timing. With the stop timing, the network device stops its AI/ML and the terminal equipment stops its AI/ML, and the network device and the terminal equipment switch to use non-AI/ML based method; See ¶.136, the timing information includes stopping time, the terminal equipment and the network device will stop the AI/ML at the stopping time (such as an SFN). For another example, the timing information includes step time (such as a slot offset or a period), the terminal equipment will stop the AI/ML after the step time upon receiving the response, the network device will stop the AI/ML after the step time from transmitting the response).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Mu and Wang disclose “transition from the first type of CSI processing to the second type of CSI processing, are individually or collectively configured to transition from the first type of CSI processing to the second type of CSI processing in accordance with a validity duration (Mu, See ¶.49, perform CSI feedback according to the CSI processing mode indicated by the switching instruction within a period of time; Wang, See Fig.6 and ¶.130, the terminal equipment may feedback ACK or send a message to the network device for ensuring the timing. With the stop timing, the network device stops its AI/ML and the terminal equipment stops its AI/ML, and the network device and the terminal equipment switch to use non-AI/ML based method).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Mu does not explicitly disclose what Wang discloses “the validity duration starts upon occurrence of the transition from the first type of CSI processing to the second type of CSI processing (Wang, See Fig.6 and ¶.130, the terminal equipment may feedback ACK or send a message to the network device for ensuring the timing. With the stop timing, the network device stops its AI/ML and the terminal equipment stops its AI/ML, and the network device and the terminal equipment switch to use non-AI/ML based method for following relevant processing).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Mu discloses “individually or collectively configured to transmit a capability indicating a minimum length of the validity duration (See ¶.88, the delay corresponding to the AI processing capability is less than a minimum delay required by terminal service).”
Regarding claim 12, Mu does not explicitly disclose what Wang discloses “transition from the first type of CSI processing to the second type of CSI processing, are individually or collectively configured to transition from the first type of CSI processing to the second type of CSI processing until a cancellation, or an indication to transition to a third type of CSI processing, is received (603 Fig.6, stop response and timing information).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Mu and Jeon disclose “the group-specific DCI includes a field indicating the transition (Mu, See ¶.51, switching instruction is carried in DCI; Jeon discloses group-specific DCI).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Mu and Wang do not explicitly disclose what Jeon discloses “the DCI is group-specific DCI that is specific to indicating the transition (See the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, Mu discloses “individually or collectively configured to transmit, prior to receiving the signaling, a request to transition from the first type of CSI processing to the second type of CSI processing (See 410 Fig.5 and ¶.83, the terminal sends a switching request to the network device, where the switching request is used to request switching of CSI processing mode).”
Regarding claim 19, Mu does not explicitly disclose what Wang discloses “the request comprises at least one of: a physical random access channel transmission, a physical uplink control channel transmission, a physical uplink shared channel transmission, or a dedicated physical channel transmission (Wang, See ¶.117, the request is transmitted via physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), and/or, the request is transmitted via physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), and it is not limited).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, it is a network node claim corresponding to a user equipment claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claims 25-28, they are claims corresponding to claims 4, 5, 9 & 18, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Regarding claim 29, it is a method claim corresponding to the claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 30, it is a method claim corresponding to the claim 22 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claims 31-33, they are claims corresponding to claims 4, 5, & 9, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Regarding claim 35, Mu does not explicitly disclose what Wang, Jeon, and Thangaraj disclose “selecting (Thangaraj, See ¶.78, if more than one encoder model is configured, the WTRU may determine which encoder is selected for CSI processing, and/or the WTRU may indicate the selected encoder model to the base station (e.g., gNB); See further ¶.386 for selecting encoders), based at least in part on the signaling, an encoder of multiple encoder networks (Wang, See Fig.22-30, AI encoders and AI decoders; Thangaraj, See Fig.4 for encoders network), each encoder network targeting different antenna geometrics (Jeon, See ¶.85, antenna port quasi co-location); and transmitting an index of the selected encoder (Wang, See 2303 Fig.23, sending CSI report including AI encoder output; See ¶.299, the procedure for a CSI report with AI/ML based (such as AI encoder) CSI report quantity is explained according to periodic CSI reporting, semi-persistent CSI reporting, aperiodic CSI reporting respectively; See ¶.308, CSI including AI-based CSI-related quantity (output of AI encoder, e.g.) is transmitted to the network device side via PUCCH; Thangaraj, See Fig.3 and ¶.107-108, precoding matrix index and codeword index; See ¶.298, explicit indication of encoder model (e.g., only), with the selection of the appropriate decoder handled by the network).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “selecting, based at least in part on the on the signaling, an encoder of multiple encoder networks, each encoder network targeting different payload sizes or antenna geometries; and transmitting an index of the selected encoder” as taught by Wang, Jeon, and Thangaraj into the system of Mu, so that it provides a way for the WTRU to indicate the selected encoder model to the base station (Thangaraj, See ¶.129).
Regarding claim 36, it is a claim corresponding to the claim 16 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 37, Mu discloses “transmitting, prior to receiving the signaling, a request to transition from the first type of CSI processing to the second type of CSI processing (See 210 Fig.1, 410 Fig.4 and ¶.83).”
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu in view of Wang & Jeon and further in view of Jeon (US 2024/0113794, hereinafter “Jeon’794”).
Regarding claim 7, Mu, Wang, and Jeon do not explicitly disclose what Jeon’794 discloses “the length of time is based at least in part on a subcarrier spacing, wherein the subcarrier spacing is based at least in part on at least one of: a subcarrier spacing of a downlink bandwidth part on which the signaling is received, a subcarrier spacing of an uplink bandwidth part associated with an acknowledgement of the signaling, or a specified subcarrier spacing value (Jeon’794, See ¶.55, sub-carrier spacing for DL and UL; See ¶.56, a slot can have duration of one millisecond and an RB can have a bandwidth of 180 kHz and include 12 SCs with inter-SC spacing of 15 kHz. A sub-carrier spacing (SCS) can be determined by a SCS configuration μ as 2.sup.μ.Math.15 kHz).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “the length of time is based at least in part on a subcarrier spacing, wherein the subcarrier spacing is based at least in part on at least one of: a subcarrier spacing of a downlink bandwidth part on which the signaling is received, a subcarrier spacing of an uplink bandwidth part associated with an acknowledgement of the signaling, or a specified subcarrier spacing value” as taught by Jeon’794 into the system of Mu, Wang, and Jeon, so that it provides a way for one a resource block (RB) to include a number of sub-carriers according to the determined a sub-carrier spacing (Jeon, See ¶.56).
Regarding claim 8, Mu, Wang, and Jeon do not explicitly what Jeon’794 discloses “the length of time comprises a number of symbols after a last symbol of a control resource set in which the signaling is received (Jeon’794, Fig.7, Fig.9, Fig.11-13, and See ¶.116, start slot/symbol for CSI report after receiving a signal).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu in view of Wang & Jeon and further in view of Jang et al. (US 2023/0090986, “Jang”).
Regarding claim 20, Mu, Wang, and Jeon do not explicitly disclose what Jang discloses “the request comprises a physical random access channel transmission on a particular resource or occasion (Jang, See ¶.84, the UE may detect the PSS and the SSS in the initial access stage, and may decode the PBCH. The UE may obtain an MIB from the PBCH, and may be configured with a control resource set #0 (which may correspond to a control resource set having a control resource set index of 0). The UE may monitor the control resource set #0 by assuming that a selected SS/PBCH block and a demodulation reference signal (DMRS) transmitted in the control resource set #0 are quasi-co-located (QCLed). The UE may receive system information as downlink control information transmitted in the control resource set #0. The UE may obtain random-access-channel (RACH)-related configuration information required for initial access from the received system information. The UE may transmit a physical RACH (PRACH) to the base station in consideration of the selected SS/PBCH index, and the base station receiving the PRACH may obtain information about the SS/PBCH block index selected by the UE. The base station may recognize which block has been selected by the UE from among the SS/PBCH blocks and may recognize that the UE monitors the control resource set #0 associated with the SS/PBCH block).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply “the request comprises a physical random access channel transmission on a particular resource or occasion” as taught by Jang into the system of Mu, Wang, and Jeon, so that it provides a way for the UE to receive system information as downlink control information transmitted in the control resource set #0 and to transmit a physical RACH (PRACH) to the base station in consideration of the selected SS/PBCH index (Jang, See ¶.84).
Regarding claim 21, Mu, Wang, and Jeon do not explicitly disclose what Jang discloses “the request comprises a physical random access channel transmission using a particular physical random access channel preamble (Jang, See ¶.84, the base station receiving the PRACH may obtain information about the SS/PBCH block index selected by the UE. The base station may recognize which block has been selected by the UE from among the SS/PBCH blocks and may recognize that the UE monitors the control resource set #0 associated with the SS/PBCH block; Examiner’s Note: the PRACH contains control information, which is located in the preamble, related with the block index selected by the UE).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 20.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu in view of Wang & Jeon and further in view of Thangaraj et al. (US 2025/0016593, “Thangaraj”).
Regarding claim 34, Wang and Thangaraj disclose “selecting (Thangaraj, See ¶.78, if more than one encoder model is configured, the WTRU may determine which encoder is selected for CSI processing, and/or the WTRU may indicate the selected encoder model to the base station (e.g., gNB); See further ¶.386 for selecting encoders), based at least in part on the signaling, an encoder of multiple encoder networks (Wang, See Fig.22-30, AI encoders and AI decoders; Thangaraj, See Fig.4 for encoders network), each encoder network targeting different payload sizes (Thangaraj, See ¶.275, the WTRU may switch between AI models based on the allocated payload size for CSI reporting. Different models have different compression ratios, so (e.g., only) models with compression ratios yielding a number of bits less than or equal to the payload size should be considered); and transmitting an index of the selected encoder (Wang, See 2303 Fig.23, sending CSI report including AI encoder output; See ¶.299, the procedure for a CSI report with AI/ML based (such as AI encoder) CSI report quantity is explained according to periodic CSI reporting, semi-persistent CSI reporting, aperiodic CSI reporting respectively; See ¶.308, CSI including AI-based CSI-related quantity (output of AI encoder, e.g.) is transmitted to the network device side via PUCCH; Thangaraj, See Fig.3 and ¶.107-108, precoding matrix index and codeword index; See ¶.298, explicit indication of encoder model (e.g., only), with the selection of the appropriate decoder handled by the network).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “selecting, based at least in part on the on the signaling, an encoder of multiple encoder networks, each encoder network targeting different payload sizes or antenna geometries; and transmitting an index of the selected encoder” as taught by Wang and Thangaraj into the system of Mu and Jeon, so that it provides a way for the WTRU to indicate the selected encoder model to the base station (Thangaraj, See ¶.129).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been considered. But, in view of the applicant’s amendment to the claims, examiner has clarified and totally remapped the rejection to the argued claim limitations and the newly added claim limitations, using the prior art of record in the current prosecution of the claims and a new prior art by Jeon. The previous 103 rejection over Mu in view of Wang has been replaced with a new 103 rejection over Mu in view of Wang and further in view of Jeon. Jeon discloses the newly added claim limitations. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jung H Park whose telephone number is 571-272-8565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 AM-3:00 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/JUNG H PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights