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 with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 2023/0217366; Cited in PTO-892 Part of Paper No. 20260516) in view of Li et al. (US 2025/0293942).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 13, and 17, Hong discloses a wireless communication method, a first wireless device, and a second wireless device, the method comprising:
transmitting, by a first wireless device to a second device located in a network, a first message that requests a model information (Fig. 6 step S52; Fig. 7 step S62; e.g., paragraphs [0070], [0073], [0080]; e.g., the network device sends a request signaling to the terminal with the AI capability. The request signaling is configured to request to acquire the AI model type supported by the terminal); and
receiving, by the first wireless device, a second message in response to the transmitting the first message (paragraph [0080]; e.g., In response to determining that the request signaling sent by a network device is received, the terminal sent an AI model type supported by the terminal to the network device),
wherein the second message includes a model description information that describes one or more characteristics of a model to be used by the first wireless device (Fig. 6 step S54; paragraphs [0059], [0062], [0069], [0075]; e.g., , an AI model type matching the AI model type supported by the terminal is configured as an AI model type supported by the network device based on the received AI model type supported by the terminal).
Hong fails to specifically disclose wherein the first message includes one or more of:
an expected number of time occasions used for model input for beam prediction in time domain or channel state information, CSI, prediction in time domain,
an expected number of time occasions used for model output for beam prediction in time domain or CSI prediction in time domain, or
a resource mapping pattern in frequency domain indicating resource element that will transmit reference signal, resource elements used for channel estimation or resource elements for CSI prediction.
However, Li discloses the first message includes an expected number of time occasions used for model input for beam prediction in time domain or channel state information, CSI, prediction in time domain (paragraphs [0022], [0084], [0089]; see a ML model may correspond to a function receiving as input the measurement of a reference signal X (e.g., transmitted in beam-x), such as a synchronization signal block (SSB) with index ‘x’, and provide as output the prediction of other reference signals transmitted in different beams). It is noted that limitations “n the first message includes an expected number of time occasions used for model output for beam prediction in time domain or CSI prediction in time domain, or a resource mapping pattern in frequency domain indicating resource element that will transmit reference signal, resource elements used for channel estimation or resource elements for CSI prediction” is omitted to address due to alternative claims such as “or”.
Therefore, taking the teachings of Hong in combination of Li as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant to have an expected number of time occasions used for model input for beam prediction in time domain or channel state information, CSI, prediction in time domain in order to challenge currently exist with machine learning fallback model for a wireless device and provide solutions to these or other challenges (Li: paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claims 2, 8, 14, and 18 , Hong in combination with Li discloses the method, the first wireless device and the second wireless device of claims 1, 7, 13, and 17, wherein the model description information includes an identifier of the model (Hong: paragraph [0048]; e.g., the AI model type supported by the network device may be indicated by an integer value defined in advance, that is, it is negotiated in advance which integer value represents which model type).
Regarding claims 3, 9, 15, and 19 , Hong in combination with Li discloses the method, the first wireless device and the second wireless device of claims 1, 7, 13, and 17, wherein the first message includes a field that identifies a purpose for requesting the model information (Hong: paragraphs [0070], [0115]).
Regarding claims 4, 10, 16, and 20 , Hong in combination with Li discloses the method, the first wireless device and the second wireless device of claims 1, 7, 13, and 17, further comprising: transmitting, by the first wireless device to the second device in the network, a third message that request a model deployment information, wherein the third message includes the identifier of the model (Hong: Fig. 6 step S55; paragraphs [0076], [0079]); and
receiving, in response to the transmitting the third message, a fourth message comprising the model deployment information that includes one or more values corresponding to one or more parameters to be used by the model (Hong: paragraphs [0049], [0092], [0108]).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Hong in combination with Li discloses the method and the first wireless device of claims 1 and 7, wherein the second message includes a model deployment information that includes one or more values corresponding to one or more parameters to be used by the model (Hong: paragraphs [0048]-[0049], [0092]; e.g., the AI model type is represented by an integer value, where different integer values correspond to different AI model types).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Hong in combination with Li discloses the method and the first wireless device of claims 1 and 7, further comprising: receiving, by the first wireless device, a failure message in response to the transmitting the first message, wherein the failure message indicates that the second device in the network does not have the model information (Hong: paragraphs [0052]-[0053]; e.g., when the terminal does not determine the AI model type matching the AI model type supported by the terminal itself from the AI model types sent by one or more network devices).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TIMOTHY X PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7115. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30-5:00.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/TIMOTHY X PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights