DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 13-15, 17-19 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pezeshki et al. (US 2022/0150727, Pezeshki hereafter).
RE claims 1 and 26, Pezeshki discloses an apparatus and method for wireless communication at a first wireless node, comprising: at least one memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-executable instructions (Processor and memory are inherent generic components) and cause the first wireless node to: transmit, to a second wireless node, an indication that a first machine learning (ML) model shares one or more properties with at least a second ML model (Paragraphs 111-116 discloses a network entity or a UE transmitting an indication of one or more machine learning models. The one of more models being associated with one out of a plurality of TRPs. Multiple models may be associated with /share the same TRP); and utilize at least the first ML model to communicate with the second wireless node (Paragraphs 111-118 discloses the models are used in wireless communications.).
RE claim 2, Pezeshki discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Pezeshki further discloses wherein the first ML model and the second ML model are used for at least one of: channel state information (CSI) feedback processing or beam management (Paragraph 109 discloses: “Example of such wireless communication applications include a channel state information (CSI) compression, a cross frequency channel prediction, beam management (e.g., a beam selection), etc.”).
RE claim 3, Pezeshki discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Pezeshki further discloses wherein at least a portion of the first ML model or the second ML model is running at the first wireless node (Paragraphs 111-116 discloses a network entity or a UE transmitting an indication of one or more machine learning models. The one of more models being associated with one out of a plurality of TRPs. Multiple models may be associated with /share the same TRP).
RE claim 5, Pezeshki discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Pezeshki further discloses wherein at least one of the first ML model or the second ML model comprises ML functionality (Paragraphs 111-116 discloses a network entity or a UE transmitting an indication of one or more machine learning models. The one of more models being associated with one out of a plurality of TRPs. Multiple models may be associated with /share the same TRP), an ML physical model, or an ML logical model.
RE claim 6, Pezeshki discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Pezeshki further discloses wherein the one or more properties comprise one or more wireless properties (Paragraphs 111-116 discloses a network entity or a UE transmitting an indication of one or more machine learning models. The one of more models being associated with one out of a plurality of TRPs. Multiple models may be associated with /share the same TRP).
RE claims 13 and 27, Pezeshki discloses an apparatus and method for wireless communication at a second wireless node, comprising: at least one memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the second wireless node to: receive, from a first wireless node, an indication that a first machine learning (ML) model shares one or more properties with at least a second ML model (Paragraphs 111-116 discloses a network entity or a UE transmitting an indication of one or more machine learning models. The one of more models being associated with one out of a plurality of TRPs. Multiple models may be associated with /share the same TRP); and perform ML model management based, at least in part, on the indication. (Paragraphs 111-118 discloses the models are used in wireless communications.).
RE claim 14, Pezeshki discloses the apparatus of claim 13 as set forth above. Note that Pezeshki further discloses wherein the first ML model and the second ML model are used for at least one of: channel state information (CSI) feedback processing or beam management (Paragraph 109 discloses: “Example of such wireless communication applications include a channel state information (CSI) compression, a cross frequency channel prediction, beam management (e.g., a beam selection), etc.”).
RE claim 15, Pezeshki discloses the apparatus of claim 13 as set forth above. Note that Pezeshki further discloses wherein at least a portion of the first ML model or the second ML model is running at the first wireless node (Paragraphs 111-116 discloses a network entity or a UE transmitting an indication of one or more machine learning models. The one of more models being associated with one out of a plurality of TRPs. Multiple models may be associated with /share the same TRP).
RE claim 17, Pezeshki discloses the apparatus of claim 13 as set forth above. Note that Pezeshki further discloses wherein at least one of the first ML model or the second ML model comprises ML functionality (Paragraphs 111-116 discloses a network entity or a UE transmitting an indication of one or more machine learning models. The one of more models being associated with one out of a plurality of TRPs. Multiple models may be associated with /share the same TRP), an ML physical model, or an ML logical model.
RE claim 18, Pezeshki discloses the apparatus of claim 13 as set forth above. Note that Pezeshki further discloses wherein in order to perform ML model management, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the second wireless node to perform at least one of: ML model activation (Paragraphs 111-116 discloses a network entity or a UE transmitting an indication of one or more machine learning models. The one of more models being associated with one out of a plurality of TRPs. Multiple models may be associated with /share the same TRP)., ML model deactivation, ML model selection (Paragraphs 111-116 discloses a network entity or a UE transmitting an indication of one or more machine learning models. The one of more models being associated with one out of a plurality of TRPs. Multiple models may be associated with /share the same TRP), ML model switching, or falling back from operating on one ML model to operating on another ML model
RE claim 19, Pezeshki discloses the apparatus of claim 13 as set forth above. Note that Pezeshki further discloses wherein the one or more properties comprise one or more wireless properties (Paragraphs 111-116 discloses a network entity or a UE transmitting an indication of one or more machine learning models. The one of more models being associated with one out of a plurality of TRPs. Multiple models may be associated with /share the same TRP).
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, 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.
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 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pezeshki in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0108214, Lee hereafter)
RE claims 4 and 16, Pezeshki discloses the apparatuses of claims 1 and 13 as set forth above. Pezeshki does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication identifies at least one of the first ML model or the second ML model via a local model ID or a global model ID.
However, wherein the indication identifies at least one of the first ML model or the second ML model via a local model ID (Paragraph 331: “A model ID and model version. Here, the model ID and model version may be local information rather than global unique information of an ML model provider NWDAF”) or a global model ID (Paragraph 303 teaches a ML model indicated by a model ID within a “global update”.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatuses of Pezeshki with the teachings of Lee since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 114745786 A, Yang hereafter).
RE claims 7 and 20, Pezeshki discloses the apparatuses of claims 6 and 19 as set forth above. Pezeshki does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more wireless properties relate to at least one of: an average delay, a delay spread, a Doppler shift, or a Doppler spread.
However, Yang teaches wherein the one or more wireless properties relate to at least one of: an average delay, a delay spread, a Doppler shift, or a Doppler spread (Paragraphs 39-43 teaches an artificial intelligence algorithm whereby at least one of the parameters obtained is “Doppler shift (Doppler shift), Doppler spread (Dopplergy), average time delay (average delay), delay spread (delay) from the reference signal”.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatuses of Pezeshki with the teachings of Yang since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 11-12 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pezeshki in view of Ma et al. (US 2021/0160149, Ma hereafter).
RE claims 11 and 25, Pezeshki discloses the apparatuses of claims 1 and 13 as set forth above. Pezeshki does not explicitly disclose the first wireless node comprises a user equipment (UE); the second wireless node comprises a network entity; and the indication is transmitted via at least one of a UE capability exchange, physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), or physical uplink control channel (PUCCH)
However, Ma teaches the first wireless node comprises a user equipment (UE); the second wireless node comprises a network entity; and the indication is transmitted via at least one of a UE capability exchange, physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), or physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) (Paragraph 113: “The information exchange procedure begins with UE sending information indicating an AI/ML capability of the UE to the BS at 1010.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatuses of Pezeshki with the teachings of Ma since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 12 and 24, Pezeshki discloses the apparatuses of claims 1 and 13 as set forth above. Pezeshki does not explicitly disclose wherein: the first wireless node comprises a network entity; the second wireless node comprises a user equipment (UE); and the indication is transmitted via at least one of radio resource control (RRC), a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH), or a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH)
However, Ma teaches wherein: the first wireless node comprises a network entity; the second wireless node comprises a user equipment (UE); and the indication is transmitted via at least one of radio resource control (RRC), a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH), or a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) (Paragraph 126: “RRC channel: In some embodiments, training sequences/training data can be sent to UE via RRC signaling.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatuses of Pezeshki with the teachings of Ma since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 21-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but may 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:
RE claims 8 and 21, prior art does not explicitly disclose, teach or suggest a first wireless node transmitting, to a second wireless node, an indication that a first machine learning (ML) model shares one or more wireless properties with at least a second ML model; wherein the wireless properties relate to at least one of: a transmit spatial filter or a receive spatial filter.
RE claims 9 and 22, prior art does not explicitly disclose, teach or suggest a first wireless node transmitting, to a second wireless node, an indication that a first machine learning (ML) model shares one or more wireless properties with at least a second ML model; wherein the one or more properties relate to at least one of: an area or areas for model applicability, applicable model operation time, or model complexity information.
RE claims 10 and 23, the claims depend upon claims 9 and 22, respectively, and thereby include the allowable features set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/James P Duffy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461