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 .
Response to Amendment
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/08/26 has been entered.
Claims 1-30 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9 and 20-21, 23 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited references fail to anticipate or render the claimed subject matter (combined with other limitations claimed in the claimed subject matter) obvious over any of the prior art of record, either alone or in combination. Therefore, when taken as a whole application, and incorporating all the respective limitations, none of the prior art discloses the features as claimed. For instance, although Bai, Kim, and Bae generally disclose prediction models, including overlapping with CSI, they do not disclose the detailed limitations and specific relationships as recited in claims 6, 9 and 20-21, 23. Consequently, these claims are allowable.
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 1-2, 11, 13-14, 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (US 20200259575 A1, cited by Applicant of Record) in view of Kim (US 20230042048 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 27, Bai discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) [fig. 3 no. 350, fig. 8], comprising:
at least one memory [fig. 3 no. 360]; and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory [fig. 3 no. 359] and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory [fig. 3 no. 358], the at least one processor is configured to:
generate, based on a machine learning (ML) model and at least one measurement for a first set of reference signal metrics of a reference signal (Neural network (i.e., ML) [par. 0061, 73-74, fig. 7 no. 706-708]), a prediction for a second set of reference signal metrics of the reference signal (Predicts future channel conditions (i.e., second set of ref signal metrics [par. 0061, 73-74, fig. 5, fig. 7 no. 710, fig. 10]); and
provide, for a network node, an indication of the prediction for the second set of reference signal metrics of the reference signal based on a priority condition associated with the prediction (The device selects which predictor to use based on optimization conditions and scenarios (i.e., priority condition) [fig. 7 no. 712-714, fig. 6, 10, par. 0072, 84]).
Although Bai discloses priority, as discussed above, Bai does not explicitly disclose priority condition, for multiplexing the indication. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Kim.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses:
priority condition, for multiplexing the indication (Multiplexed or not multiplexed [par. 0620]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bai with Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of synching the TRPs and/or sharing CSI reports [Kim par. 0005].
Regarding claims 2 and 28, Bai and Kim disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Bai further discloses:
wherein the indication of the prediction for the second set of reference signal metrics of the reference signal is associated with at least one beam (Beam management for UE1 and UE2 (i.e., second set of RS metrics) [par. 0056-57, 62-64, 68, 70, fig. 6], wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
communicate, with the network node/UE, via the at least one beam based on the indication of the prediction (Communication is performed over the beams [fig. 7]).
Regarding claim 11, Bai and Kim disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Bai further discloses:
wherein the reference signal metric type is at least one of a reference signal received power (RSRP) or a signal-to-interference and noise ratio (SINR) (RSRP [par. 0053, 64-65, 71]).
Regarding claim 13, Bai and Kim disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Bai further discloses:
further comprising at least one transceiver coupled to the at least one processor [fig. 3 no. 356, 368], wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
receive, from the network node, a machine learning (ML) configuration indicative of the ML model via the at least one transceiver (Determines based on config info received from network entity [par. 0102-103, fig. 10 no. 1005, 1015]).
Regarding claim 14, Bai and Kim disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Bai further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
receive, from the network node and prior to the generation of the prediction, the reference signal [fig. 7 no. 706]; and
perform the at least one measurement for the first set of reference signal metrics of the reference signal [fig. 7 no. 708].
Claims 15-19, 24-26, 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai in view of Ge (US 20240372635 A1).
Regarding claims 15 and 29, Bai discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a network node [fig. 3 no. 310], comprising:
at least one memory [fig. 3 no. 376]; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory [fig. 3 no. 375] and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory [fig. 3 no. 374], the at least one processor is configured to:
receive, from a user equipment (UE), a measurement indication of at least one measurement for a first set of reference signal metrics of a reference signal, wherein the first set of reference signal metrics of the reference signal is associated with a priority condition associated with a prediction, … between beams (The device selects which predictor to use based on optimization conditions and scenarios (i.e., priority condition) [fig. 7 no. 712-714, fig. 6, 10, par. 0072, 84]);
generate, based on at least one of a machine learning (ML) model, the priority condition associated with the prediction, or the measurement indication of the at least one measurement for the first set of reference signal metrics of the reference signal, the prediction for a second set of reference signal metrics of the reference signal (Neural network (i.e., ML) [par. 0061, 73-74, fig. 7 no. 706-708] and predicts future channel conditions (i.e., second set of ref signal metrics [par. 0061, 73-74, fig. 5, fig. 7 no. 710, fig. 10]); and
provide, for the UE, an indication of the prediction for the second set of reference signal metrics of the reference signal (The network node determines the prediction model and communicates it to the UE [par. 0057, 090, 102]).
Although Bai discloses priority, as discussed above, Bai does not explicitly disclose wherein the priority condition is based on relative priorities. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Ge.
In the same field of endeavor, Ge discloses:
wherein the priority condition is based on relative priorities [par. 120].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bai with Ge. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of communicating relevant info [Ge par. 0120].
Regarding claims 16 and 30, Bai and Ge disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Bai further discloses:
wherein the indication of the prediction for the second set of reference signal metrics of the reference signal is associated with at least one beam (Beam management for UE1 and UE2 (i.e., second set of RS metrics) [par. 0056-57, 62-64, 68, 70, fig. 6], wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
communicate, with the network node/UE, via the at least one beam based on the indication of the prediction (Communication is performed over the beams [fig. 7]).
Regarding claim 26, Bai and Ge disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Bai further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
receive, from the network node and prior to the generation of the prediction, the reference signal [fig. 7 no. 706]; and
perform the at least one measurement for the first set of reference signal metrics of the reference signal [fig. 7 no. 708].
Regarding claim 17, Bai and Ge disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Bai further discloses:
wherein the first set of reference signal metrics is a time series of the reference signal metrics of the reference signal [fig. 4-5], wherein to receive the measurement indication of the at least one measurement for the first set of reference signal metrics of the reference signal, the at least one processor is configured to receive channel state information (CSI) associated with the at least one measurement for the first set of reference signal metrics of the reference signal [par. 0057].
Regarding claim 18, Bai and Ge disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Bai further discloses:
wherein the CSI includes a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first portion includes a fixed payload indicative of one or more of at least one beam or a time stamp associated therewith, wherein the second portion includes the first set of reference signal metrics (CSI communicates metrics along with beam and timing [par. 0085, 87]).
Regarding claim 19, Bai and Ge disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Bai further discloses:
wherein at least one reference signal metric of the first set of reference signal metrics is associated with a respective priority, according to the priority condition, based on one or more of at least one beam or a time stamp associated therewith (The config info includes the future resources to predict (i.e., priority) and include beams and timing [par. 0080-82]);
wherein to generate the prediction for the second set of reference signal metrics of the reference signal, the at least one processor is configured to generate the prediction based on at least one of the respective priority associated with the at least one reference signal metric (The config info includes the future resources to predict (i.e., priority) and include beams and timing [par. 0080-82]).
Regarding claim 24, Bai and Ge disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Bai further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to configure the UE with the priority condition associated with the prediction (The network transmits the conditions for which the predictions will be based (i.e., priority) [par. 0079-80]; or
wherein the priority condition associated with the prediction is associated with the UE (The device selects which predictor to use based on optimization conditions and scenarios (i.e., priority condition) [fig. 7 no. 712-714, fig. 6, 10, par. 0072]).
Regarding claim 25, Bai and Ge disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Bai further discloses:
wherein the priority condition is based on a reference signal metric type associated with the first set of reference signal metrics and the second set of reference signal metrics (The device selects which predictor to use based on optimization conditions and scenarios (i.e., priority condition involving first and second RS metrics) [fig. 7 no. 712-714, fig. 6, 10, par. 0071-72]), wherein the reference signal metric type is at least one of a reference signal received power (RSRP) or a signal-to-interference and noise ratio (SINR) (RSRP [par. 0053, 64-65, 71]).
Claims 3-5, 7-8, 10, and 12, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai and Kim as applied to claim 1 and 15 respectively, and further in view of Bae (US 20210084644 A1, cited by Applicant of Record).
Regarding claim 3, Bai and Kim disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Bai discloses wherein to provide the indication of the prediction for the second set of reference signal metrics of the reference signal, the at least one processor is configured to provide the indication of the prediction … based on the priority condition, as discussed above, Bai and Kim do not explicitly disclose via uplink control information (UCI). However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Bae.
In the same field of endeavor, Bae discloses:
via uplink control information (UCI) (UCI is channel status info [par. 0216]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bai and Kim with Bae. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of selectively transmitting UCI to satisfy latency and reliability requirements [Bae par. 0001, Abstract].
Regarding claim 4, Bai, Kim, and Bae disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Bae further discloses:
wherein the UCI has a first priority that is lower than at least one of a second priority of an acknowledgement (ACK) associated with the UE or a third priority of a scheduling request (SR) associated with the UE (ACK and SR have higher priority than CSI (i.e., UCI) [fig. 12, par. 0249, 0012-014, 134]).
Regarding claim 5, Bai, Kim, and Bae disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Bai and Bae further disclose:
wherein the indication of the prediction for the second set of reference signal metrics of the reference signal [Bai, as discussed above] comprises channel state information (CSI), wherein the UCI comprises a CSI report (UCI is the CSI [Bae par. 0216]).
Regarding claim 7, Bai and Kim disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Bai discloses wherein the provision of the indication of the prediction, as discussed above, Bai and Kim do not explicitly disclose overlaps in time with a provision of a channel state information (CSI) report, and wherein the priority condition is based on whether the prediction is associated with a measurement of the second set of reference signal metrics. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Bae.
In the same field of endeavor, Bae discloses:
overlaps in time with a provision of a channel state information (CSI) report (Overlaps in time or freq [Bae par. 0189, 216, 249-250, 193, 195, 200-202]), and wherein the priority condition is based on whether the prediction is associated with a measurement of the second set of reference signal metrics (Higher priority is given preference [Bae par. 0202, 223-224]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bai and Kim with Bae. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of selectively transmitting UCI to satisfy latency and reliability requirements [Bae par. 0001, Abstract].
Regarding claim 8, Bai and Kim disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Bai discloses wherein the provision of the indication of the prediction …, and wherein the priority condition is based on a model priority of the ML model, as discussed above, Bai and Kim do not explicitly disclose overlaps in time with a provision of a channel state information (CSI) report. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Bae.
In the same field of endeavor, Bae discloses:
overlaps in time with a provision of a channel state information (CSI) report (Overlaps in time or freq [Bae par. 0189, 216, 249-250, 193, 195, 200-202]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bai and Kim with Bae. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of selectively transmitting UCI to satisfy latency and reliability requirements [Bae par. 0001, Abstract].
Regarding claim 10, Bai and Kim disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Bai discloses wherein the provision of the indication of the prediction …, and wherein the priority condition is based on a reference signal metric, as discussed above, Bai and Kim do not explicitly disclose overlaps in time with a provision of a channel state information (CSI) report, and … type associated with the first set of reference signal metrics and the second set of reference signal metrics. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Bae.
In the same field of endeavor, Bae discloses:
overlaps in time with a provision of a channel state information (CSI) report (Overlaps in time or freq [Bae par. 0189, 216, 249-250, 193, 195, 200-202]), and … type associated with the first set of reference signal metrics and the second set of reference signal metrics (URLLC, eMBB, [par. 0200-202, 223-224]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bai and Kim with Bae. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of selectively transmitting UCI to satisfy latency and reliability requirements [Bae par. 0001, Abstract].
Regarding claim 12, Bai and Kim disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Bai discloses wherein the provision of the indication of the prediction …, and wherein the priority condition is based on a confidence level or an expected average error associated with the prediction [par. 0084, 119] and as discussed above, Bai and Kim do not explicitly disclose overlaps in time with a provision of a channel state information (CSI) report. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Bae.
In the same field of endeavor, Bae discloses:
overlaps in time with a provision of a channel state information (CSI) report (Overlaps in time or freq [Bae par. 0189, 216, 249-250, 193, 195, 200-202]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bai and Kim with Bae. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of selectively transmitting UCI to satisfy latency and reliability requirements [Bae par. 0001, Abstract].
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai and Ge as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Bae (US 20210084644 A1, cited by Applicant of Record).
Regarding claim 22, Bai and Ge disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Bai discloses reference signal metrics, as discussed above, Bai and Ge do not explicitly disclose wherein the first set of reference signal metrics of the reference signal is associated with a lower priority than any other set of reference signal metrics of any other reference signal associated with the network node and the UE. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Bae.
In the same field of endeavor, Bae discloses:
wherein the first set of reference signal metrics of the reference signal is associated with a lower priority than any other set of reference signal metrics of any other reference signal associated with the network node and the UE (CSIs have the lowest priority (i.e., UCI) [fig. 12, par. 0249, 0012-014, 134]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bai and Ge with Bae. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of selectively transmitting UCI to satisfy latency and reliability requirements [Bae par. 0001, Abstract].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights