Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to a response received on May 15, 2026.
Claims 1, 24, 26, and 43 have been amended.
Claims 14 and 15 have been canceled.
Claims 1-13, 24, 26, 43 and 62-63 pending.
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
The objection to the specification has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
The 35 USC §103 rejection is hereby withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments and arguments (see remarks pg. 12-14). However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection has been made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-13, 24, 26, 43 and 62-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the denoising autoencoder and/or the at least one candidate noising pattern for predicting a radio signal measurement", … “associated with each candidate noising pattern” in lines 9-12. However, further limitations only further limit the at least one candidate noising pattern and appears to require the at least one candidate noising pattern to be obtained. The scope of the claim is unclear because claim 1 recites alternatively obtaining the denoising autoencoder OR the at least one candidate noising pattern and additionally later requires obtaining the at least one candidate noising pattern. This leaves a contradiction as to whether the at least one noising candidate is required or not as part of the BRI of claim 1. Claim 2 requires preconfigured associated candidate noising patterns, however that limitation is not in claim 1, so requiring “each” candidate noising pattern is unclear because there is at minimum one candidate noising pattern.
Claim 1 further recites “a first noising pattern”, … “second noising pattern” in lines 12-14. However, it is also unclear if the first and second noising patterns are a subset of “each candidate noising pattern” or separate non-candidate noising patterns.
Since it is unclear how the claim is being impacted by the recited claim language, the metes and bounds of claim 1 is unclear which renders the claims indefinite.
Claim 24 is an independent apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 26 is an independent method claim directed toward the complimentary wireless device as claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 43 is an independent apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 26 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 2-13, 62 and 63 dependents from claim 1 and claim 26 respectively are indefinite for the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, 24, 26 and 43 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 2-13 are 62 would be allowable because they are dependent on claim 1.
Claim 63 would be allowable because it is dependent on claim 26.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner believes that a phone interview might be helpful in clearing up the issues of this application and help accelerate the prosecution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO2022050461A1 issued to LIM et al.
US 20240077584 A1 issued to YOO et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to POONAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-6579. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru 8:30-5:30 pm, 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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/POONAM SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights