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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 6/23/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that (A) “The encoded quantity recited in Group II therefore is an estimate of the uplink data symbols, and the asserted "materially different ... effect" on which the requirement rests does not exist as claimed. The single articulated reason for distinctness thus does not support the requirement.”, (B) “Group I and Group II recite complementary sides of a single distributed autoencoder operating across the same fronthaul link, and they share the same recited subject matter…The two groups are not "not capable of use together"; to the contrary, they are expressly claimed to operate together as the CU side and RU side of the same system. This shared, interdependent subject matter further demonstrates that the inventions are not mutually exclusive in the manner asserted”, (C) “paragraph 4 merely lists the standard alternatives (a)-(c) without identifying which applies or providing any supporting rationale…Where both groups fall within the same classification and concern the same…they would be searched in the same field of search using overlapping queries, and the prior art applicable to one would be applicable to the other. Reasons (a) separate status due to divergent subject matter, (b) a different field of search, and (c) non-overlapping prior art are therefore not supported on this record”. This is not found persuasive because (1) computation of an estimate of a quantity of uplink data symbols is different from a representation of an estimate of a quantity of uplink data symbols, (2a) the Examiner stated previously there is different effect for “or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect”, (2b) groups I and II are mutually exclusive because although they share few features, most of groups I and II are of different scope (Applicant’s arguments that they are not mutually exclusive (same scope) is unreasonable because there are many limitations found in group I that are not in group II and vice versa), and (3) although both groups fall within the same classification, they would be searched in similar but different field of search using few to little overlapping queries, and the prior art applicable to one would not necessarily be applicable to the other (e.g., it is self-evident from looking at groups I and II that group I field of search and prior art would appear to be related to AI-related encoding and decoding of symbols whereas group II field of search and prior art would be appear to be related to non-AI related encoding of symbols).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/23/26.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) was/were submitted on 5/29/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “parameters of” in line 2 to “parameters associated with” to be consistent with their respective independent claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-15 is/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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what “the quantity of uplink data symbols” is referring to since there are potentially multiple quantity of uplink data symbols in claim 1 (e.g., when the set of one or more RUs is two or more RUs and receiving signaling from each of the two or more RUs). Furthermore, it is unclear what “the decoded set of symbols” is referring to since there are potentially multiple decoded set of symbols in claim 1. Claims 2-9 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 1 and are thus rejected under similar rationale. Claim 10 recite similar limitations of claim 1 and is thus rejected under similar rationale. Claims 11-14 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 10 and are thus rejected under similar rationale. Claim 15 recite similar limitations of claim 1 and is thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 5-7 and 12-14, it is unclear what “the quantity of uplink data symbols” are referring to since there are potentially multiple quantity of uplink data symbols in their respective independent claim. Claim 6 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 5 and is thus rejected under similar rationale. Claim 8 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 7 and is thus rejected under similar rationale. Claim 13 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 12 and is thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim(s) 6, the boundaries of “a statistical analysis…a statistical analysis…a statistical analysis…” is/are unclear because the claim(s) does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function(s). The recited function(s) does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., at least one decoder or at least one memory or at least one processor, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the network entity in a certain manner. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim(s). See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Regarding claim(s) 13, the boundaries of “the dataset is generated…a statistical analysis…a statistical analysis…a statistical analysis…” is/are unclear because the claim(s) does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function(s). The recited function(s) does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., at least one controller, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the processor in a certain manner. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim(s). See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 10, and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-9 and 11-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior arts of record, in single or combination, does not teach, suggest or provide rationale for “define a computation model comprising at least one encoder and the at least one decoder, wherein the at least one encoder is associated with at least one radio unit (RU) of a set of one or more RUs, and wherein the network entity is connected to each of the set of one or more RUs via a corresponding fronthaul channel; transmit, to the set of one or more RUs, a set of one or more parameters associated with the at least one encoder; receive signaling from each of the set of one or more RUs, wherein the signaling comprises an encoded set of symbols, wherein the encoded set of symbols comprises a quantity of uplink data symbols encoded based on the set of one or more parameters associated with the at least one encoder; decode the encoded set of symbols that is received from each of the set of one or more RUs using the at least one decoder based on a set of one or more parameters associated with the at least one decoder; and compute an estimate of the quantity of uplink data symbols based on the decoded set of symbols” of claim 1 and similarly for claims 10 and15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER P CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7152. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 A.M - 6 P.M. ET M-F.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/PETER P CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights