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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs), submitted on 28 November 2023 and 28 March 2025, were filed after the mailing date of the patent application on 28 November 2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings, received on 28 November 2023, are acceptable for examination.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recite “perform a first action associated with wireless communication” and “a second action associated with wireless communication”. Here, the recitation, “wireless communication”, has been previously recited. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “the wireless communication”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recite “perform an action associated with wireless communication”. Here, the recitation, “wireless communication”, has been previously recited. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “the wireless communication”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 and Claim 25 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recites “downlink control information” and “radio resource control”. Here, these recitations are being introduced, so the corresponding acronym should be included. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “downlink control information (DCI)” and “radio resource control (RRC)” respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: Said claim recites “switching to the second ML group if the indication is to switch or continuing with the first ML group if the indication is to continue” and “performing a first action associated with wireless communication based at least in part on a first model developed with the first ML group if the indication is to continue or a second action associated with wireless communication based at least in part on a second model developed with the second ML group if the indication is to switch”. Examiner reminds Applicant that "[the] broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met", See MPEP 2111.04 and See Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2015-007421 (Jan. 31, 2016). Here, the contingent limitation, (i.e. “if the indication is to switch” and “if the indication is to continue”) is not a condition that is required to occur, therefore the entire limitation is not required to occur. Given that the limitation is not required to occur, said limitation does not possess patentable weight. Examiner has, in the interest of compact prosecution, treated the limitation. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “in response to the indication indicating to continue” and “in response to the indication indicating to switch”. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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, 12-13, 14-15, 18, 25-27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 20210342687 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Wang”).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang discloses a first user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising:
a memory (¶41-45 & Fig. 2, Wang discloses a user equipment (UE) comprising computer-readable storage media 212); and
one or more processors, coupled to the memory (¶41-45 & Fig. 2, Wang discloses the UE further comprising processor(s) 210 coupled to the computer-readable storage media 212), configured to:
receive an indication on whether to switch from a first machine learning (ML) group to a second ML group or to continue with the first ML group (¶119 & Fig. 8 (840), Wang discloses receiving, by the UE from a base station (BS), a message directing the UE to update from a first neural network to a second neural network. Examiner correlates the first neural network and/or first neural network formation configuration to "a first machine learning (ML) group". Examiner correlates the second neural network and/or second neural network formation configuration to "a second ML group");
switch to the second ML group if the indication is to switch (¶120 & Fig. 8 (850), Wang discloses updating from the first neural network to the second neural network if the message indicated to update the first neural network with the second neural network formation configuration) or continue with the first ML group if the indication is to continue (Examiner notes that the use of “or” and “and/or” has a broadest reasonable interpretation of any element in the list that follows or any of those elements taken together. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal 2011-004811, Application No. 11/565,411. Thus, Examiner has not treated all limitations separated by “and/or” and “or”); and
perform a first action associated with wireless communication based at least in part on a first model developed with the first ML group if the indication is to continue (Examiner notes that the use of “or” and “and/or” has a broadest reasonable interpretation of any element in the list that follows or any of those elements taken together. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal 2011-004811, Application No. 11/565,411. Thus, Examiner has not treated all limitations separated by “and/or” and “or”) or a second action associated with wireless communication based at least in part on a second model developed with the second ML group if the indication is to switch (¶120 & Fig. 8 (850->810->820->825), Wang discloses performing, by the UE, at least one action based upon the second neural network developed with the second neural network configuration in response to the message directing the UE to update the first neural network with the second neural network formation configuration).
Regarding Claim 12, Wang discloses the UE of claim 1.
Wang further discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive an indication of the second ML group or a third ML group in downlink control information, a medium access control control element (MAC CE), or in a radio resource control message (¶166, Wang discloses receiving, by the UE from the BS, index value(s) of a neural network formation configuration in a downlink control channel, a media access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE), and/or a radio link control (RLC) message).
Regarding Claim 13, Wang discloses the UE of claim 1.
Wang further discloses wherein the second ML group has a different complexity or functionality than a complexity or functionality of the first ML group (¶120, Wang discloses that the first neural network is different from the second neural network where the second neural network is generated by updating the first neural network with the second neural network formation configuration).
Regarding Claim 14, Wang discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising:
a memory (¶41-45 & Fig. 2, Wang discloses a user equipment (UE) comprising computer-readable storage media 212); and
one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured (¶41-45 & Fig. 2, Wang discloses the UE further comprising processor(s) 210 coupled to the computer-readable storage media 212) to:
switch from a first machine learning (ML) group to a second ML group based at least in part on one or more of a switching rule (¶120 & Fig. 8 (850), Wang discloses switching from a first neural network to a second neural network based upon a receipt of a message indicating, or directing, the UE to update the first neural network with the second neural network formation configuration. Here, the message acts as an instruction to implement a rule to switch from the first neural network to the second neural network), an ML group configuration (¶120 & Fig. 8 (850), Wang discloses switching from a first neural network to a second neural network based a second neural network formation configuration), a model configuration (¶120 & Fig. 8 (850), Wang discloses switching from a first neural network to a second neural network based a second neural network formation configuration), or an expiration of a timer (Examiner notes that the use of “or” and “and/or” has a broadest reasonable interpretation of any element in the list that follows or any of those elements taken together. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal 2011-004811, Application No. 11/565,411. Thus, Examiner has not treated all limitations separated by “and/or” and “or”); and
perform an action associated with wireless communication based at least in part on a model developed with the second ML group (¶120 & Fig. 8 (850->810->820->825), Wang discloses performing, by the UE, at least one action based upon the second neural network developed with the second neural network configuration in response to the message directing the UE to update the first neural network with the second neural network formation configuration. Examiner correlates the action to communication with the BS based upon the second neural network formation configuration (810), generating UE metrics (820), and communicating the metrics (825)).
Regarding Claim 15, Wang discloses the UE of claim 14.
Wang further discloses wherein the timer is not associated with a particular ML group (¶110-121 & Fig. 8, Wang does not disclose a timer associated with a neural network formation configuration or a corresponding neural network).
Regarding Claim 18, Wang discloses a base station for wireless communication, comprising:
a memory (¶47-50 & Fig. 2, Wang discloses a base station (BS) comprising computer-readable storage media 262); and
one or more processors, coupled to the memory (¶47-50 & Fig. 2, Wang discloses the BS further comprising processor(s) 260 coupled to the computer-readable storage media 262), configured to:
generate an indication on whether a user equipment (UE) is to switch from a first machine learning (ML) group to a second ML group or to continue with the first ML group (¶119 & Fig. 8 (840), Wang discloses generating, by the BS, a message directing the UE to update from a first neural network to a second neural network. Examiner correlates the first neural network and/or first neural network formation configuration to "a first machine learning (ML) group". Examiner correlates the second neural network and/or second neural network formation configuration to "a second ML group"); and
transmit the indication to the UE (¶119 & Fig. 8 (840), Wang discloses transmitting, by the BS to the UE, the message directing the UE to update from a first neural network to a second neural network).
Regarding Claim 25, Wang discloses the base station of claim 18.
Wang further discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit an indication of the second ML group or a third ML group via a downlink control information, a medium access control control element (MAC CE), or a radio resource control message (¶166, Wang discloses receiving, by the UE from the BS, index value(s) of a neural network formation configuration in a downlink control channel, a media access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE), and/or a radio link control (RLC) message).
Regarding Claim 26, Wang discloses the base station of claim 18.
Wang further discloses wherein the first ML group is an anchor group, and the second ML group is a non-anchor group (¶110-121 & Fig. 8, Wang discloses that the first neural network formation configuration is an initial configuration and the second neural network formation configuration is a subsequent configuration. Here, the first neural network has priority over the second neural network, thus Examiner correlates the first neural network and the first neural network formation configuration to “an anchor group” and correlates the second neural network and the second neural network formation configuration to “non-anchor group”).
Regarding Claim 27, Wang discloses the base station of claim 18.
Wang further discloses wherein the second ML group has a different complexity or functionality than a complexity or functionality of the first ML group (¶120, Wang discloses that the first neural network is different from the second neural network where the second neural network is generated by updating the first neural network with the second neural network formation configuration).
Regarding Claim 28, Claim 28 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-3, 10-11, 19-20, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Ma et al. (US 20210160149 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Ma”).
Regarding Claim 2, Wang discloses the UE of claim 1.
However, Wang does not disclose wherein the indication includes one or more bits in an ML group switching field of a downlink control information (DCI).
Ma, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the indication includes one or more bits in an ML group switching field of a downlink control information (DCI) (¶206 & ¶157 & Fig. 14 (1210), Ma discloses that the updated AI model information may be a downlink control information (DCI) field).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang by requiring that the indication includes one or more bits in an ML group switching field of a downlink control information (DCI) as taught by Ma because communication is improved by enabling the exchange of AI/ML capability between two communicating devices is used to optimize one or more air interface components to accomplish device-specific air interface optimization (Ma, ¶9).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang in view of Ma discloses the UE of claim 2.
Ma, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the one or more bits indicate the second ML group (¶206 & ¶157 & Fig. 14 (1210), Ma discloses that the DCI field indicates the updated AI model information).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang in view of Ma by requiring that the one or more bits indicate the second ML group as taught by Ma because communication is improved by enabling the exchange of AI/ML capability between two communicating devices is used to optimize one or more air interface components to accomplish device-specific air interface optimization (Ma, ¶9).
Regarding Claim 10, Wang in view of Ma discloses the UE of claim 2.
Ma, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the one or more bits include a bit that indicates that the UE is to return to the second ML group, and wherein the second ML group was used prior to the first ML group (¶206 & ¶157 & Fig. 14 (1210), Ma discloses that the DCI field indicates the updated AI model information. Here, the updated AI model information may have been a previous AI model information).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang in view of Ma by requiring that the one or more bits include a bit that indicates that the UE is to return to the second ML group, and wherein the second ML group was used prior to the first ML group as taught by Ma because communication is improved by enabling the exchange of AI/ML capability between two communicating devices is used to optimize one or more air interface components to accomplish device-specific air interface optimization (Ma, ¶9).
Regarding Claim 11, Wang in view of Ma discloses the UE of claim 2.
Ma, a prior art reference, teaches wherein the one or more bits include a bit that indicates that the UE is to continue with the first ML group (¶206 & ¶157 & Fig. 14 (1210), Ma discloses that the DCI field indicates the updated AI model information. Here, the bits of the DCI field would indicate which AI model information to use).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang in view of Ma by requiring that the one or more bits include a bit that indicates that the UE is to continue with the first ML group as taught by Ma because communication is improved by enabling the exchange of AI/ML capability between two communicating devices is used to optimize one or more air interface components to accomplish device-specific air interface optimization (Ma, ¶9).
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 29, Claim 29 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 30, Claim 30 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 3.
Claims 4 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Ma in further view of Khan et al. (US 20210399797 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Khan”).
Regarding Claim 4, Wang in view of Ma discloses the UE of claim 2.
However, Wang in view of Ma does not disclose wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive a radio resource control (RRC) message that indicates a location of the ML group switching field in the DCI.
Khan, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive a radio resource control (RRC) message that indicates a location of the ML group switching field in the DCI (¶70, Khan discloses that radio resource control (RRC) signaling can be used to indicate to the UE how to interpret new/repurposed DCI fields for a new purpose).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang in view of Ma by requiring that the one or more bits include a bit that indicates that the UE is to return to the second ML group, and wherein the second ML group was used prior to the first ML group as taught by Khan because non-terrestrial communication is improved by adjusting a PHY layer procedure of the wireless device to mitigate switching problems with one of the satellites during and/or after the interruption (Khan, ¶2-4).
Regarding Claim 21, Claim 21 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9, 16-17, and 22-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474