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 .
The preliminary amendment filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 7-11 and 18-22 are cancelled. Claims 23-32 are added new. Therefore, claims 1-6, 12-17, and 23-32 are pending and addressed below.
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 1-6, 12-17 and 23-32 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, 23 and 28 recite “neural network encoder decoder pair” which lacks clarity. It is not clear which operations are performed by the claimed "neural network encoder decoder pair', and, most importantly, which of said operations are limiting for the claimed UE method (i.e., it is not clear which parts of said "encoder decoder pair" are installed and operated at the UE side), and which technical effect is achieved by using such a "neural network encoder decoder pair". Also, encoding decoding pair in the UE is not understood as UE performs only encoding.
Claims 1, 12, 23 and 28 recite ”CSI encoder output” which lacks clarity. It is not clear about the technical meaning or technical content of the claimed "CSI encoder output', how it may differ from the claimed "best rank indicator" and "channel quality index", and what technical effect is achieved by the reporting of such a "CS/ encoder output'.
Claims 3, 14, 25 and 30, recite “potential rank indicator” which is not understood. It is not clear about the difference between a rank indicator and a potential rank indicator.
Dependents claims are subjected to the same rejection because of their dependency on the rejected independent claims.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7-11 and 18-22 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 04/03/2026.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 12-14, 16-17, 23-25, 27-30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IDS Reference, HWANG; In Seok et al US 20200235795 A1, hereinafter HWANG, in view of SHEN; Jia US 20220124744 A1, hereinafter SHEN.
Regarding claim 1, 12, 23 and 28, HWANG teaches, a method of wireless communication by a user equipment (UE) (The method is understood, in line with the Spec disclosure, to be obtaining an optimal precoding matrix of a rank, based on calculated performance indicator such as optimum transmission capacity (i.e., spectral efficiency), using channel estimation), comprising:
estimating a downlink channel to generate a channel estimate (HWANG [0048] “A channel estimation unit 50 estimates a channel estimation value H from a reference signal when the channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) is present in the frequency-domain signal.”).
obtaining a plurality of precoding matrices, by a channel state information (CSI) module (HWANG [93]-[98], [93] “The precoding matrix W in FIG. 4 may be represented by W.sub.v,m, which indicates the precoding matrix where the rank value is v and the PMI Index is m. Therefore, with respect to all (v, m) combinations defined in the standard, “the transmission capacity for the effective channel” where the channel H and the value of W are multiplied is compared, and the channel state information determination unit 120 may determine the value of W* (RI*, PMI*) having the optimum capacity in a particular channel situation.”, [97] “Therefore, in order to obtain the optimum precoding matrix among precoding matrixes of (P×v), β≥ν, which are defined in the standard for each rank v and to obtain the channel state information when using the precoding matrix, the transmission capacity of the channel is set as the objective function as shown in Expression 13, and the optimum RI and PMI are determined from Expression 14 and Expression 15 by searching for the objective function value with respect to each precoding matrix. That is, even if the ranks are different, it is possible to determine merits and demerits of all transmission capacities by comparing bps/Hz values, and when selecting the optimum rank value, the corresponding MMIB metric is used.
RI=v*=Rank(W*) [Expression 14]
PMI=m*=Index of W*) [Expression 15] “,
implies calculating transmission capacity for various precoding matrices of different ranks based on obtained channel state information, in order to determine an optimum precoding matrix. wherein the claimed "plurality of ... ranks" may be directly corresponded to the "each rank v" disclosed in par. [0097] and in Tables 1-2 in respect of the depicted" # of layer (v)". The claimed "CSI module" may directly corresponded to the "channel state information determination unit 120" depicted in Fig. 1).
determining a best rank indicator based on the plurality of precoding matrices and spectral efficiency estimates for the plurality of different MIMO ranks (see HWANG [0097] and equation (14), wherein the claimed "best rank indicator" may be directly corresponded to the RI=v* (i.e. see the "optimum rank/RI" mentioned in par. [0097]) disclosed therein, and wherein the claimed "spectral efficiency estimates" may be directly corresponded to the MMlB (Mean Mutual Information per Bit) parameters disclosed throughout - see also the "bps/Hz" values mentioned in para [0097]).
reporting, to a base station, the best rank indicator, a channel quality index (CQI), and CSI encoder output (HWANG implicitly teaches the subject-matter in the determination of RI/PMI/CQI according to equations (14)-(17) and the CSI reporting disclosed in para [0049]).
HWANG does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, SHEN teaches, by a channel state information (CSI) module including a neural network encoder decoder pair (Applicant merely states neural network encoder decoder pair without claiming any specific distinguishing feature of the neural network model. Accordingly, the limitation is interpreted as that CSI module simply includes a neural network comprising coding decoding model. SHEN Fig. 2, Fig. 13; [0093] “A network architecture for the method for processing CSI according to implementations are described below with an example where the terminal device determines the CSI indication information with an encoding neural network model and the network device determines the CSI with a decoding neural network model.”, teaches using encoding and decoding pair in the neural model for processing CSI).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of HWANG to include using a neural network model as taught by SHEN above in order to recover the CSI accurately by the network device (SHEN [0003])).
With respect to claim 12, claim recites the identical features of claim 1 for a corresponding UE. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection. Hwang teaches, a memory; and at least one processor as UE inherently has memory and processor.
With respect to claim 23, claim recites the identical features of claim 1 for a corresponding apparatus. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
With respect to claim 28, claim recites the identical features of claim 1 for a corresponding non-transitory computer-readable medium. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
Regarding claims 2, 13, 24 and 29, HWANG, in view of SHEN, teaches the method/apparatus/CRM, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1, 12, 23 and 28.
HWANG further teaches, in which the CSI module comprises a plurality of CSI modules, each of the plurality of CSI modules corresponding to a different MIMO rank (HWANG [90] “determine the RI first, and under the corresponding rank, the sub-band PMI value having the maximum MMIB metric and the CQI value for the PMI are calculated for each sub-band”, suggests possibly having multiple CSI analysis modules for different RIs (Rank Indicator)).
Regarding claims 3, 14, 25 and 30, HWANG, in view of SHEN, teaches the method/apparatus/CRM, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1, 12, 23 and 28.
HWANG further teaches, in which the CSI module receives a plurality of potential rank indicators as input (see HWANG [90], [93] and [97] and explanation above, implying multiple RIs as input to the CSI module).
Regarding claims 5, 16, 27 and 32, HWANG, in view of SHEN, teaches the method/apparatus/CRM, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1, 12, 23 and 28.
HWANG further teaches, further comprising calculating the CQI based on the best rank indicator and the plurality of precoding matrices (see HWANG [0099] “At step S330, the CQI may be selected, after the average of the values of the MMIB metrics in all bands is obtained by applying the precoding matrix having the PMI value predetermined at step S320, by using a table look-up method in accordance with the characteristic of the channel, from a transmission quality per codeword (ppCINR) obtained through MMIB inverse transformation. This is represented in Expression 16 and Expression 17.”).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, HWANG, in view of SHEN, teaches the method/apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1 and 12.
HWANG further teaches, in which the channel estimate models physical propagation characteristics of the downlink channel between the base station and the UE (see HWANG [22], [48]-[49] teaching channel state analysis unit uses physical DL signal such as CSI-RS for channel estimation).
Claims 4, 15, 26 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HWANG, in view of SHEN, and further in view of TIAN; Wenqiang et al US 20230353283 A1, hereinafter TIAN.
Regarding claims 4, 15, 26 and 31, HWANG, in view of SHEN, teaches the method/apparatus/CRM, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1, 12, 23 and 28.
HWANG and Shen do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, TIAN teaches, further comprising receiving, from the base station, signaling of CSI decoder information of the neural network encoder decoder pair (TIAN [0097] “For example, the second node is a network device, and the first node is a terminal device. The network device transmits the CSI decoding model and the interface information of the CSI decoding model to the terminal device.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of HWANG and SHEN to include the features as taught by TIAN above in order for information exchange between various nodes in a mobile communication system being realized with an encoding model and a decoding model (TIAN [0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
IDS Reference, BAKNINA; Abdulrahman US 20210314036 A1 - RANK INDICATOR (RI) AND CHANNEL QUALITY INDICATOR (CQI) ESTIMATION USING A MULTI-LAYER PERCEPTRON (MLP)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-0232. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST; Friday variable.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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.
/MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights