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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 11/12/2023 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 04/01/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that, firstly, the restriction is incorrectly applied based on PCT unity of invention; and secondly, “the Office required election of species but failed to identify ‘the generic invention’ or ‘generic claim.’ For at least this reason, the Restriction should be withdrawn and all claims examined”. This is not found persuasive because first, even though the restriction was mistakenly issued under PCT unity invention, the claims are still restricted based on the same species (see the corrected restriction below). Furthermore, the office is not required to identify “the generic invention” or “generic claim” when there is no generic claims between the independent claims since as indicated in the current specification, each of the species are related to different embodiments (see paragraph [0035], “Referring to FIG. 2, FIG. 2 is a flowchart of an information processing method according to an embodiment of this application”; paragraph [0101], “Referring to FIG. 3, FIG. 3 is a flowchart of another information processing method according to an embodiment of this application”; and paragraph [0129], “Referring to FIG. 4, FIG. 4 is a flowchart of another information processing method according to an embodiment of this application.”)
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species I: Figures 2 and 5 (related claim(s): 1-14);
Species II: Figures 3 and 6 (related claim(s): 15-19); and
Species III: Figure 4 and 7 (related claim(s): 20)
The species are independent or distinct because they are related to different embodiments as described in the specification related to figures 2 and 5; 3 and 6; 4 and 7.
In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, no generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: The species require a different field of search (e.g. searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species; and/or the species are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.G, 112(a).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Remarks
The present Office Action is based upon the Applicant’s amendment filed on 04/01/2026. Claims 1-20 are now pending in the present application.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thomas et al. -US 20240072870 A1- (hereinafter Thomas).
Regarding claim 1, Thomas discloses a method for information processing, comprising:
receiving, by a terminal, first information sent by a first device entity (FIG. 2 and FIG. 5, par. 0073, “At Step 1, the RAN node 210 configures the UE 205 with a RF Beam Fingerprint (“BFP”) database and a configuration for data collection and update of the BFP database (see messaging 215)”); and
performing, by the terminal, a first operation according to the first information, the first operation is a service feature extraction-related operation (FIG. 2, par. 0074, “At Step 2, the UE 205 performs BFP measurement(s) according to the received configuration, i.e., by measuring and logging beam signal characteristics (see block 220).”),
wherein the first information comprises at least one of the following:
a service feature extraction request, wherein the service feature extraction request is used to indicate the terminal to perform the first operation based on a first processing method (par. 0112, 0114-0115, “Regarding location information acquisition, the gNB (e.g., the RAN node 210) may request the UE location information for mapping to the BFD database in one of the following ways: …Using MAC CE/RRC signaling based on the location information request and reporting message. The UE reports its location, for example using Global Navigation Satellite System (“GNSS”) information, or IMU sensors, or with the help of RAT-dependent positioning methods.”);
first sub-information used to indicate the first processing method (par. 0122, for using DCI, MAC CE and or RRC signaling to perform measurement, “the UE would have to be configured to measure the BFP metrics within specified time intervals, which may be based on a timer, measurement report periodicity, or on-demand signaling and signaled via Downlink Control Information (“DCI”), MAC CE, and/or RRC signaling.”; Note: "Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation." See MPEP 2103 I.C);
first assistance information used for the first processing method (par. 0118, “the UE is configured with UL configured grant (“CG”) resources to report any change in its location/orientation information.”; Note: "Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation." See MPEP 2103 I.C);
result information obtained by performing processing based on a second processing method, an input of the second processing method comprises the terminal-related information (the limitation is an optional step and is not considered: "Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation." See MPEP 2103 I.C);
an indication used to request second sub-information, wherein the second sub- information comprises terminal-related information or information obtained by performing information feature hiding on the terminal-related information, a manner of performing information feature hiding comprises at least one of the following: performing encryption processing and performing feature abstraction processing by using a preset neural network (the limitation is an optional step and is not considered: "Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation." See MPEP 2103 I.C); or
an indication used to request third sub-information, wherein the third sub-information is used to update a third processing method (the limitation is an optional step and is not considered: "Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation." See MPEP 2103 I.C).
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, Thomas discloses wherein the performing, by the terminal, the first operation according to the first information comprises any one of the following: performing, by the terminal, the service feature extraction-related operation based on the first processing method, the service feature extraction-related operation comprises at least one of service prediction, service feature statistics, service feature key indicator extraction, and service experience statistics (the limitation is an optional step and is not considered: "Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation." See MPEP 2103 I.C);
sending, by the terminal, the second sub-information or the third sub-information to the first device entity (FIG. 2, par. 0074, “At Step 2, the UE 205 performs BFP measurement(s) according to the received configuration, i.e., by measuring and logging beam signal characteristics (see block 220)”; par. 0114, “The UE reports its location, for example using Global Navigation Satellite System (“GNSS”) information, or IMU sensors, or with the help of RAT-dependent positioning methods.”); or
performing, by the terminal, service feature extraction based on at least a part of information in the result information (the limitation is an optional step and is not considered: "Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation." See MPEP 2103 I.C).
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1 above, Thomas discloses wherein the first assistance information meets any one of the following: the first assistance information is obtained by performing first preset processing on first target information; the first assistance information is the first target information (par. 0118, “the UE is configured with UL configured grant (“CG”) resources to report any change in its location/orientation information.”; Note: "Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation." See MPEP 2103 I.C); or the first assistance information is the first target information when the terminal performs authentication with the first device entity through a preset interaction authentication procedure, wherein the first target information comprises related information of a second device entity or information obtained by performing second preset processing on the related information of the second device entity; and the first preset processing or the second preset processing comprises at least one of the following: performing encryption processing or performing feature abstraction processing by using a preset neural network.
Regarding claims 4-7, as applied to claim 3 above, the limitations of the claims are optional steps and are not considered: "Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation." (See MPEP 2103 I.C).
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 1 above, the limitations of the claim are optional steps and are not considered: "Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation." (See MPEP 2103 I.C).
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1 above, Thomas discloses wherein the first device entity comprises one or at least two of the following: a base station, a local management function (LMF), a network data analytics function (NWDAF), a first network element, or a second network element, wherein the first network element is a network element configured to perform the second processing method, and the second network element is configured to perform at least one of the following: performing information collection on information required by the second processing method, or performing information calculation on the information required by the second processing method (FIG. 2 and/or FIG. 5, for the gNB (e.g., the RAN node 210); par. 0062, “the term “gNB” is used for the base station/base unit, but it is replaceable by any other radio access node, e.g., RAN node, ng-eNB, eNB, Base Station (“BS”), Access Point (“AP”), etc.”; par. 0077 for LMF).
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 1 above, Thomas discloses communicating, by the terminal, with the first device entity to determine at least one of the following: whether the terminal has a capability of performing a service prediction operation based on the first processing method; available terminal-related information when the terminal performs the service prediction operation (par. 0070, “From a network perspective, a key benefit of selecting an optimal beam using inverse beam fingerprinting includes the reduction of beam-management related signaling overhead especially in controlled and predictable environments, such as IIoT/indoor factory settings”; par. 0127, “when a UE is configured with multiple beams for a given location via the mapping table, then the UE be dynamically indicated with an invalid beam (potentially because of a blockage predicted/identified on that beam) and the UE is not expected to use that invalid beam and rather apply one of the other beams that has been configured by a mapping table”); or a probability of performing different types of service transmission within a preset time period.
Regarding claims 11-14, as applied to claim 1 above, the limitations of the claims are optional steps and are not considered: "Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation." (See MPEP 2103 I.C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
RYDÉN et al. -US 20230016595 A1- disclose PERFORMING A HANDOVER PROCEDURE.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAHYAR KASRAIA N whose telephone number is (571)270-1772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5: 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, RAFAEL PEREZ-GUTIERREZ can be reached at (571)272-7915. 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.
/ALLAHYAR KASRAIA N/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights