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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 1/27/2026, with respect to claim rejections - 35 U.S. §§ 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S. §§ 102 and 103 have been withdrawn. However, Examiner maintained the nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of copending Application No. 18546568. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because calim 1 of instant application merely broadens the scope of claims 2 and 12 of copending Application No. 18546568.
Instant Application
copending Application No. 18546568
1, A method of wireless communications by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
communicating with a network based on a machine learning model for wireless communication;
monitoring a status of the machine learning model for wireless communication;
reporting the status of the machine learning model for wireless communication
using a predetermined resource according to a predetermined format; and
1. An apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising: a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive, from a base station, machine learning model information defining a machine learning model for the UE; receive, from the base station, a configuration defining a trigger for reporting a status of the machine learning model;
detect the trigger for reporting the status of the machine learning model based at least in part on the configuration; and transmit, to the base station, a report message indicating the status of the machine learning model based at least in part on detecting the trigger.
2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: determine a periodic resource pattern for reporting the status of the machine learning model based at least in part on the configuration, wherein the instructions to transmit the report message are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to transmit the report message in an uplink resource according to the periodic resource pattern.
falling back to communicating with a fallback procedure in response to a pre-configured rule and/or a network configured fallback procedure, instead of the machine learning model for wireless communication, to maintain wireless communication with the network in response to the status of the machine learning model indicating a model failure, and reporting the falling back to the network.
12. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the report message comprises: a status report for the machine learning model, the status report comprising at least a first model index corresponding to the machine learning model and the status of the machine learning model, wherein the status of the machine learning model comprises model variation information for the machine learning model; a failure report for the machine learning model, the failure report comprising a payload size, an indication of a fallback mode, the first model index corresponding to the machine learning model, a second model index corresponding to a fallback machine learning model, the status of the machine learning model, or any combination thereof, wherein the status of the machine learning model comprises input data to the machine learning model, statistics for the machine learning model, an output distribution of the machine learning model, or any combination thereof; or both.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EUNSOOK CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-1822. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 5712723940. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/EUNSOOK CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467