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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 10, 20, 21, 24-26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARKet al PG PUB 2025/00096966 in view of CIRIK et al PG PUB 2020/0267712.
Re Claims 1, 20 and 24, PARK et al teaches figure 27, a Terminal (memory, transceiver and processor) receiving L1/L2 configuration S105 [0397 0462] from a BS (memory, transceiver and processor) wherein the configuration (an indication) indicates a correspondence relationship (QCL relationship) for an AI/MI algorithm [0394 0422 0433 0436]; the terminal performs/computes channel estimation (one or more measurements) based on the references [0466].
PARK et al fails to explicitly teach “the QCL relationship indicating one or more radio characteristics of the reference signal that are applicable for the AI/ML model;”.
However, CIRIK et al teaches there is a need to introduce a mechanism to indicate an activation and/or deactivation status of an antenna panel based on a single QCL assumption with a single RS [0390].
By combining the teaching, the QCL assumption with the RS can be configured/applied in the AI/ML model in PARK et al to predict the activation and/or deactivation of the antenna panel to improve latency and/or performance [0389].
One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have trained the AI/ML model with the single QCL assumption indicating the single reference signal to improve performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claims 2, 21, PARK et al teaches the training data for the AL model training measurements can be related to location/movement direction/speed (a target location of the UE to [0140 0232].
Re Claim 10, PARK et al teaches the SRS (a sounding reference signal) configured in the AL/ML model [0417 0418].
Re Claim 25, PARK et al teaches the QCL relationship includes a doppler shift, delay spread [0110].
Re Claims 26 and 29, PARK et al teaches the UE and gNode B, See figure 27.
Claims 3-9, 12-15, 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARKet al PG PUB 2025/00096966 in view of CIRIK et al PG PUB 2020/0267712 as applied to Claims 1, 12 and 20 above and further in view of YANG et al PG PUB 2024/0349227.
Re Claims 3, 5, PARK et al teaches the terminal includes UE location data for training the AL/ML model algorithm to derive the output related to the target location or inference. PARK et al in view of CIRIK et al fails to explicitly teach transmitting the target location to a location server. However, YANG et al teaches AL model may be implemented through a separate server or (location server) [0094]. By combining the teachings, the location server can receive the derive target location from the AL model to improve the positioning accuracy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claims 4, 22, YANG et al teaches the determination of the information of the location of the UE based on the LOS line of signal information (an intermediate measurement) used in AL model [0276].
Re Claim 6, YANG et al teaches one or more measurement values includes a channel impulse response or channel frequency response [0148]. Re Claims 7, 8, 14, PARK et al teaches the receiving the terminal receiving configuration information indicating the correspondence relationship (the QCL relationship). PARK et al fails to explicitly teach the QCL relationship is received via a LPP message. However, YANG et al teaches a base station or LMF transmitting an indication or command of method for acquiring the positioning-related operations/information via LPP message [0286]. By combining the teachings, the QCL relationship information in PARK et al can be received via the LPP message to configure the terminal with the QCL relationship to be applied in the AL training. One skilled in the art would have been motivated have used known the LPP message in configuring the terminal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claim 9, YANG et al teaches the positioning reference signal [0276].
Re Claims 12, 15, 18, PARK et al teaches figure 27, a Terminal (a UE) receiving L1/L2 configuration S105 [0397 0462] from a BS (gNode B) wherein the configuration (an indication) indicates a correspondence relationship (QCL relationship) between a training RS (an AI/MI model) and an inference RS (a reference) for an AI/MI algorithm [0394 0422 0433 0436]. PARK et al teaches the QCL relationship but fails to explicitly teach "configuring one or more positioning reference signal resources. However, YANG et al teaches configuring (configuration information) the UE with one or more positioning reference signal signals [0286]. By combining the teachings, the AL/MI model can be trained the QCL relationship with the one or more positioning reference signals to ensure the accuracy of the positioning information of the UE. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to ensure the accuracy of the positioning information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claim 13, PARK et al teaches the QCL relationship includes a doppler shift, delay spread [0110].
Claims 11, 19, 23 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARKet al PG PUB 2025/00096966 in view of CIRIK et al PG PUB 2020/0267712 as applied to Claims 1, 12 and 20 above and further in view ZIRWAS PG PUB 2025/0055578.
Re Claims 11, 19, 23 and 30, PARK et al teaches based on the QCL relationship indication, the terminal performs the data training in the AL/MI model. PARK et al in view of CIRIK et al fails to explicitly teach "applying model life cycle management operation on the AL/ML model. However, ZIRWAS et al teaches LCM (life cycle management) ensures that accuracy in the ML model [0056]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to ensure the accuracy in the ML model. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Claims 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARKet al PG PUB 2025/00096966 in view of CIRIK et al PG PUB 2020/0267712 and YANG et al PG PUB 2024/0349227 as applied to Claim 12 above and further in view LI et al PG PUB 2024/0340141.
Re Claim 16, PARK et al in view of CIRIK et al and YANG et al fails to explicitly teach " request the indication of the QCL relationship from the UE.". However, LI et al teaches the UE notifying a BS of the QCL relationship [0116-0118] whereby the BS can be configured to request the QCL relationship from the UE. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have the LMF and UE to have the same understanding of the QCL relationship information. In so doing, the same understanding ensures interoperability between the UE and LMF. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claim 17, LI et al teaches the LMF requests additional positional reference signal resources from the UE [0094].
Claims 27, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARKet al PG PUB 2025/00096966 in view of CIRIK et al PG PUB 2020/0267712 as applied to Claim 24 above and further in view of LI et al PG PUB 2024/0340141.
Re Claim 27, PARK et al in view of CIRIK et al fails to explicitly teach " request the indication of the QCL relationship from the UE.". However, LI et al teaches the UE notifying a BS of the QCL relationship [0116-0118] whereby the BS can be configured to request the QCL relationship from the UE. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have the LMF and UE to have the same understanding of the QCL relationship information. In so doing, the same understanding ensures interoperability between the UE and LMF. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claim 28, LI et al teaches the LMF requests additional positional reference signal resources from the UE [0094].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-30 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3130. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM ET.
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, KASSIM KHALAD can be reached at 5712703370. 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.
/ANDREW LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights