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
2. 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.
3. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 2, 10-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2023/0370885), hereinafter referred to as Lee, in view of Abebe et al. (US 2023/0412227), hereinafter referred to as Abebe.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a receiver (terminal) that receives AI model information generated by the transmitter (base station) and usable by the receiver. The AI model information may include at least indicator(s) such as quantization scheme of the output latent variables, CSI feedback length, etc.…, see 0056, 0063-0064, 0068. The transmitter may transmit CSI report configuration for CSI reporting (corresponding to CSI request message) using the AI model to the receiver, see S307 and par. 0087. The receiver may generate CSI feedback information using the AI model (S308), and transmit the CSI feedback information to the transmitter, see S309 and par. 0089.
Lee, however, fails to mention specifically, “quantizing generated CSI feedback information based on [the first indication information]”.
Abebe discloses a UE producing the quantized compressed CSI feedback data S 1205-fig.12 by quantizing the compressed CSI feedback data through the quantizer 1201, see 0163.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a quantizer for quantizing the compressed CSI feedback into the system of Lee. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable the UE to reduce overhead of channel state information (CSI) feedback by transmitting information to a BS, and for the BS to increase accuracy in reconstructing compressed CSI data.
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses using the CSI feedback information. The receiver may transmit several subbands to the transmitter, see 0143, and the receiver may transmit AI capability information including UE capability information of the terminal configured by a higher layer of the terminal to the transmitter, see 0094, via at least another indicator of the AI model information received by the receiver, see 0063.
Regarding claim 10, please see the rejection of claim 1. The rejection of claim 1 is for a method of a terminal [for communication with a base station] has been described above, and it should be noted that a method of the base station [for communication with the terminal] can be performed in a similar manner.
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses using the CSI feedback information. The receiver may transmit several subbands to the transmitter, see 0143, and the receiver may transmit AI capability information including UE capability information of the terminal configured by a higher layer of the terminal to the transmitter, see 0094, via at least another indicator of the AI model information received by the receiver, see 0063.
Regarding claim 18, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under Lee-Abebe for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. The UE 116-fig.3 includes a processor 340 for performing the claimed steps.
Allowable subject matter
6. Claims 3-9, 12-17 and 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jeon (US 2024/0097764); Zhang (US 2025/0220480); Niu et al. (US 2024/0283611) are cited, and considered pertinent to the instant specification.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUC C HO whose telephone number is (571)272-3147. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4pm.
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 on 571-270-1420 (Gary.mui@uspto.gov). 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/DUC C HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
The Office correctly notes that Nahata does not disclose or teach forming a network slice pseudonym for a network slice. (See Office action at page 6). The Office, however, contends that a person of skill in the art would be motivated to modify Nahata to arrive at the claimed invention based on the teachings of Emanuel. (/d.). Applicant does not agree.(17570793)
16/457456 One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of both the Cousin, Laborde and Deville references since both pertain to the field of downhole communication systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the downhole inductive coupling system of Cousin to implement the feature of inductive coupling from the network interface unit to the surface as disclosed by Deville to gain the functionality of providing a redundant medium for the transmission of power and/or communication between downhole tools in a bottom hole assembly.
Regarding claim 7, please see claim 1. The base station-fig.25 of KIM includes a transceiver 2505-fig.25 (corresponding to a transmitter) and a controller 2510-fig.25, see 0284 (corresponding to a RRC processor). Claim 7 is directed to a base station that is in communication with an UE of claim 1. In other words, Kim and Park also teach a base station that performs the claimed limitations, wherein the transmission of the generated Scell would be received by the receiver of the UE, so that it would be added as an available Scell to the UE.
Regarding claims 7-8, these claims have similar limitations as claims 1-2. Therefore, they are rejected under ****-***** for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1-2.
Regarding claim 9, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under You for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ a transmitter/receiver module that may be exchanged or retrofitted in modular fashion as taught by Vollmer into the system of Rogalski. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to yield a predictable result of being able to constantly match newly developed sub-networks, such as newer versions of Bluetooth or cellular network communication.
Above, a description has been made of a process for transmitting data from the mobile station to the base station, and it should be noted that the process for transmitting the data from the base station to the mobile station can be performed in a similar manner
Regarding claim 12, please see the rejection of claim 1. The rejection of claim 1 is for a method of operating a measuring node (and a wire node) has been described above, and it should be noted that a method in which a radio node being configured to communicate with a measuring node can be performed in a similar manner.
Although paragraphs [0048], [0051], [0059] recite the limitation verbatim, as noted by applicant, however, applicant discloses in paragraph [0029]-[0030] (reproduce bellow for (15857321). Spec. has the same claim language…
Therefore, taking the teachings of Zerbe and Ziperovich as whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to select a phase offset stored in memory to adjust the timing of the sampling of the received signal in order to facilitate recovery without the need to calculate the phase offset on the fly which could be resource intensive and therefore too costly.
5.1.1.6 D1 already discloses that the DCI can request HARQ-ACK feedback from any previously postponed HARG-ACK processes, see, 6.q., page 6, Observation 5. it would be obvious to the skilled person thal this apolies also to processes having a different process index than the one scheduled by the DCI, since this would be a situation typically obtaining when requesting feedback for all processes bul scheduling only one. The skilled cerson would thus implement the distinguishing feature by using common general knowledge, and would thus arrive af the subjeci-matter of claim 1 without taking an inventive step (Art. 56 EPC}.