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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on 02/07/2024 has a total of 12 claims pending in the application; there are 3 independent claims and 9 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-12 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.
As per claim 1, 11 and 12, the following limitations are recited:
- “causing a communication control model provider...” recited in claim 1.
- “causing a control entity setter…” recited in claim 1.
- “causing a communication control procedure setter …” recited in claim 1.
Each unit are being defined by the function they perform and have no defined structure definition. Claiming a processor performs… causing… is limiting their structure. Therefore, the claimed limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Dependent claims 2-10 are also rejected since they are depended upon rejection claims set forth above.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-12 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.
Claims 1-12 recite “…provide a communication control model concerning communication control...set a communication control procedure for the communication control model…”. The claims are considered indefinite and grammatically confusing leading to metes and bounds issue. The claims require a process for performing… then causing… There is a missing direct object that the performing would implement. It is unclear how the performing causing… limitations work together because they are not grammatically correct. Also, the claims need to clearly indicate the software and hardware needed to implement the steps that the communication control apparatus should be positively recited in the claim. Claiming how a processor can cause things to happen is indefinite, because the claims are directed to a general purpose processor, or an apparatus programmed to perform as claimed.
Claim 1 recites “provide a communication control model concerning communication control between a communication device and a base station that provides a communication cell to the communication device, to at least one of the communication device and the base-station side”. This additionally does not appear to be grammatically correct. It is unclear how to interpret the metes and bounds of providing a model concerning communication control. It is unclear how to construe that limitation and what would fall under that scope. It is also unclear what provides a communication cell to the communication device. Is it the communication control or the base station?
Claim 1 additionally recites “the base-station side”, whereas it earlier referred to “a base station” it is unclear if the base station and the base station side are related or how to construe the base station side as opposed to a base station from the context of the claim.
Independent claims 11 and 12 have similar issues as indicated in claim 1.
For clarification, the examiner interpreted a claim to its broadest reason interpretation and has taken the language of the claims As Written, considering the invention as a whole. As such, the examiner provided applicant with a broadest reasonable alternative that still meets the claimed recitations, as written.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by HIRZALLAH et al. Publication No. (US 2025/0358769 A1).
Regarding claim 1, HIRZALLAH teaches a communication control apparatus comprising at least one processor (positioning server (e.g., AI/ML location servers 168) FIG.1) that performs:
causing a communication control model provider (location server 1204 FIG.12) to provide a communication control model concerning communication control between a communication device and a base station that provides a communication cell to the communication device, to at least one of the communication device and the base-station side (the location server 1204 (e.g., a first network entity) may initiate dataset indexing/marking for a set of datasets associated with at least one AI/ML model (e.g., an AI/ML model that is to be used in associated with positioning), and index/mark the set of datasets with an ID, and may transmit (step 1214) the AI/ML model information to UE 1202 and to base station 1206 (step 1218) [0123-125] FIG.12);
causing a control entity setter to set a control entity of the communication control model to either the communication device or the base-station side (the base station 1306 may train the at least one AI/ML model (or positioning functionalities associated with the at least one AI/ML model) using the set of datasets indexed with the ID. For example, this may apply the base station-side AI/ML positioning model as described in connection with FIG. 9A [0136] 1328-FIG.13); and
causing a communication control procedure setter to set a communication control procedure for the communication control model in accordance with the location where the communication control model is provided and the control entity (after receiving the ID from the location server 1204 and/or based on the received ID, the UE 1202 may be configured to log (e.g., store) positioning configurations and/or radio characteristics/statistics associated with the UE 1202 (that are related to the dataset collection session) with the ID. Similarly, at 1218, the location server 1204 may also transmit the ID to a base station 1206 (e.g., a third network entity, a serving base station for the UE 1202, a base station participating in the positioning of the UE 1202, etc.) [0126] FIG.12).
Regarding claim 2, HIRZALLAH teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the communication control model provider provides the communication control model to the communication device (the UE 1002 may train the at least one AI/ML model (or positioning functionalities associated with the at least one AI/ML model) using the set of datasets indexed with the ID. For example, this may apply to the UE-side AI/ML positioning model as described in connection with FIGS. 7 and 8A. [0117-119] FIG.10).
Regarding claim 3, HIRZALLAH teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the control entity setter sets the control entity of the communication control model to the communication device, and wherein the communication control procedure setter sets, for the communication control model provided to the communication device and having the communication device as the control entity, the communication control procedure including at least one of the following:
(Al) the communication device acquiring information concerning whether or not the base-station side can support the communication control model;
(A2) the base-station side acquiring information concerning whether or not the communication device can support the communication control model;
(C) the communication device initiating the update of the communication control model;
(D) the communication device acquiring information concerning the performance of the communication control model on the base-station side;
(E) the base-station side providing the communication device with information concerning the performance of the communication control model on the base-station side;
(F 1) the communication device acquiring data for training the communication control model from the base-station side;
(F2) the communication device notifying the base-station side of the initiation of the training of the communication control model; and
(G) the communication device acquiring the communication control model updated by the base-station side (the UE 1202 may be configured to log (e.g., store) positioning configurations and/or radio characteristics/statistics associated with the UE 1202 (that are related to the dataset collection session) with the ID. Similarly, the base station 1206 may be configured to log (e.g., store) positioning configurations and/or radio characteristics/statistics associated with the base station 1206 (that are related to the dataset collection session) with the ID. the ID/dataset identifier may include one or more of the following attributes: (1) a unique identifier, (2) a cell ID, an RAN area ID, a tracking area ID, etc., (3) an UTC timing plus date, (4) a start/stop timing and date, (5) landmark fix information (e.g., latitude, longitude, and/or elevation, or unique location information of a nearby landmark such as building address that is publicly known), (6) an expiry time for the ID, or a combination thereof. [0126-127] FIG.11).
Regarding claim 4, HIRZALLAH teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the control entity setter sets the control entity of the communication control model to the base-station side, and wherein the communication control procedure setter sets, for the communication control model provided to the communication device and having the base-station side as the control entity, the communication control procedure including at least one of the following:
(A) the base-station side acquiring information concerning whether or not the communication device can support the communication control model;
(B) the base-station side acquiring information concerning the storage location of the communication control model in the communication device;
(C) the base-station side initiating the update of the communication control model;
(D) the base-station side acquiring information concerning the performance of the communication control model in the communication device;
(E) the communication device providing the base-station side with information concerning the performance of the communication control model in communication device;(F1) the base-station side acquiring data for training the communication control model from the communication device;
(F2) the base-station side instructing the communication device to initiate the training of the communication control model; and
(G) the base-station side instructing the communication device to update the communication control model (the UE 1202 may be configured to log (e.g., store) positioning configurations and/or radio characteristics/statistics associated with the UE 1202 (that are related to the dataset collection session) with the ID. Similarly, the base station 1206 may be configured to log (e.g., store) positioning configurations and/or radio characteristics/statistics associated with the base station 1206 (that are related to the dataset collection session) with the ID. the ID/dataset identifier may include one or more of the following attributes: (1) a unique identifier, (2) a cell ID, an RAN area ID, a tracking area ID, etc., (3) an UTC timing plus date, (4) a start/stop timing and date, (5) landmark fix information (e.g., latitude, longitude, and/or elevation, or unique location information of a nearby landmark such as building address that is publicly known), (6) an expiry time for the ID, or a combination thereof. [0126-127] FIG.11).
Regarding claim 5, HIRZALLAH teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the communication control model provider provides the communication control model to the base-station side (the base station 1306 may train the at least one AI/ML model (or positioning functionalities associated with the at least one AI/ML model) using the set of datasets indexed with the ID. For example, this may apply the base station-side AI/ML positioning model as described in connection with FIG. 9A [0136] 1328-FIG.13).
Regarding claims 6-7, the claims are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 3-4, where the difference used is sending the model to the base station having the control to the “base station” side to use the model and manage the connection with the UE. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 8, HIRZALLAH teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the communication control model provider provides the communication control model to both the communication device and the base-station side (the location server 1204 (e.g., a first network entity) may initiate dataset indexing/marking for a set of datasets associated with at least one AI/ML model (e.g., an AI/ML model that is to be used in associated with positioning), and index/mark the set of datasets with an ID, and may transmit (step 1214) the AI/ML model information to UE 1202 and to base station 1206 (step 1218) [0123-125] FIG.12).
Regarding claims 9-10, the claims are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 3-4, where the difference used is the limitations were presented so that the control information are sent to “both the UE and base station” and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 11-12, related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claim 1, wherein the difference used is the limitations were presented from an “apparatus” side with a processor (HIRZALLAH: FIG.3) and sharing information between communication devices and base stations (HIRZALLAH: FIG.1) and the wordings of the claim were interchanged within the claim itself or were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claim and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to this claim. Therefore, this claim was rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claims 13-18 (cancelled).
Conclusion
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELNABI O MUSA whose telephone number is (571)270-1901, and email address is abdelnabi.musa@uspto.gov ‘preferred’. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Bates, can be reached on 571-2723980. 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.
/ABDELNABI O MUSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472