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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/26 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, on page 7, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claim 6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claim 6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, starting on page 6, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Xue (US 20210376895 A1) in view of Bagheri (US 20240172026 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3, 7-10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue (US 20210376895 A1) in view of Bagheri (US 20240172026 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Xue discloses:
“A method of transmitting channel state information in a wireless communication system, the method performed by a user equipment (UE) comprising: receiving, from a base station (BS), a reference signal related to measurement of a channel;” ([¶ 0065]: “At block 504, the UE calculates CSI based on downlink reference signal measurements.”)
“generating the channel state information based on the reference signal, wherein the channel state information includes at least one of 1) information related to a … based on the measurement of the channel or 2) information related to a difference between a … used for offline learning of a neural network (NN) related to the wireless communication system and the … based on the measurement of the channel;” ([¶ 0066]: “At block 506, the UE generates a quantized CSI difference value based on a quantization of a difference between the calculated CSI and the CSI predicted based on the CSI prediction model.”)
“transmitting, to the BS, the channel state information; and” ([¶ 0067]: “At block 508, the UE reports, to the network entity, the calculated CSI and the quantized CSI difference value.”)
“receiving, from the BS, information including a NN parameter applied to the NN determined based on the channel state information,” ([¶ 0053]: “If the predictions are consistently inaccurate by more than a threshold amount, the UE can determine that the model is inaccurate and can update the training data set using recorded CSI and instruct the gNB to reconfigure the UE with an updated, retrained machine learning model.”)
“wherein the … based on the measurement of the channel is a … of at least one of channel power, channel amplitude, or signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) measured based on the reference signal.” ([¶ 0091]: “In another example, the series of prediction and ground-truth pairs may be based on one or more of early HARQ ACK/NACK statistics, a precoding matrix indicator (PMI), channel quality indicator (CQI), rank indicator (RI), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), or other measurements or statistics that may provide information…”)
Xue does not explicitly disclose “probability distribution.”
However, Bagheri discloses the missing feature “probability distribution” ([¶ 0052]: “In some embodiments, statistical CSI can include a percentile (e.g., of SINR, or CQI corresponding to a cumulative distribution function (“CDF”), and/or a probability distribution function (“PDF”)), a mean, a variance, a standard deviation, a median of CQI corresponding to (e.g., post decoding) SINR samples, and so forth.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Xue and Bagheri, to modify the SNR as disclosed by Xue, to be a probability distribution as disclosed by Bagheri. The motivation for doing so is that it takes into account a larger amount of data and is thus better representative. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Xue with Bagheri to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, Xue in view of Bagheri discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Xue further discloses “wherein a specific value related to update of the NN parameter is determined by the probability distribution based on the measurement of the channel.” ([¶ 0053]: “If the predictions are consistently inaccurate by more than a threshold amount, the UE can determine that the model is inaccurate and can update the training data set using recorded CSI and instruct the gNB to reconfigure the UE with an updated, retrained machine learning model.”; [¶ 0090]: “While the session is active, the gNB may qualify the predictions based on the qualifying scheme and may add information about the predicted CSI, the measured CSI, and whether the prediction is a qualified prediction to a training data set for use in retraining and refining the CSI prediction model.”)
Regarding claim 3, Xue in view of Bagheri discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Xue further discloses “wherein the specific value is based on i) a difference between a probability distribution based on the measurement of the channel obtained based on a current time and a probability distribution based on the measurement of the channel previously obtained based on a previous time or ii) a difference between the probability distribution based on the measurement of the channel obtained based on the current time and an estimated value of a probability distribution related to the channel.” ([¶ 0066]: “At block 506, the UE generates a quantized CSI difference value based on a quantization of a difference between the calculated CSI and the CSI predicted based on the CSI prediction model.” Wherein probability distribution is taught by Bagheri as discussed in relation to the parent claim.)
Regarding claim 7, Xue in view of Bagheri discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Xue further discloses “wherein the specific value is based on i) a difference between a probability distribution based on the measurement of the channel obtained based on a current time and a probability distribution based on the measurement of the channel previously obtained based on a previous time or ii) a difference between the probability distribution based on the measurement of the channel obtained based on the current time and an estimated value of a probability distribution related to the channel.” ([¶ 0046]: “Channel state information (CSI) may be used for various purposes, such as link adaptation through adaptive modulation and coding (AMC), multi-user diversity (MUD) through proporational fair (PF) scheduling, for multi-user (MU) multiple-in, multiple-out (MIMO) (MU-MIMO) communications, and so on. To facilitate CSI feedback over a wireless network link, a transmitter generally arranges a series of pilot occasions for the receiver(s) that are to measure CSI, and the transmitter and receiver arrange a series of feedback occasions to collect CSI feedback (i.e., for the receiver to transmit CSI feedback, and for the transmitter to receive the CSI feedback from the receiver).”)
Regarding claim 8, Xue in view of Bagheri discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Xue further discloses “receiving data based on the NN receiver to which the NN parameter is applied.” ([¶ 0046]: “Channel state information (CSI) may be used for various purposes, such as link adaptation through adaptive modulation and coding (AMC), multi-user diversity (MUD) through proporational fair (PF) scheduling, for multi-user (MU) multiple-in, multiple-out (MIMO) (MU-MIMO) communications, and so on. To facilitate CSI feedback over a wireless network link, a transmitter generally arranges a series of pilot occasions for the receiver(s) that are to measure CSI, and the transmitter and receiver arrange a series of feedback occasions to collect CSI feedback (i.e., for the receiver to transmit CSI feedback, and for the transmitter to receive the CSI feedback from the receiver).”)
Regarding claim 9, Xue in view of Bagheri discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Xue further discloses “receiving data based on the NN receiver to which the NN parameter is applied.” ([¶ 0046]: “Channel state information (CSI) may be used for various purposes, such as link adaptation through adaptive modulation and coding (AMC), multi-user diversity (MUD) through proporational fair (PF) scheduling, for multi-user (MU) multiple-in, multiple-out (MIMO) (MU-MIMO) communications, and so on. To facilitate CSI feedback over a wireless network link, a transmitter generally arranges a series of pilot occasions for the receiver(s) that are to measure CSI, and the transmitter and receiver arrange a series of feedback occasions to collect CSI feedback (i.e., for the receiver to transmit CSI feedback, and for the transmitter to receive the CSI feedback from the receiver).”)
Regarding claim 9, Xue in view of Bagheri discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Xue does not explicitly disclose “wherein, based on information on the probability distribution used for offline learning of the neural network (NN) related to the wireless communication system being preconfigured: 1) the information on the probability distribution used for offline learning of the neural network (NN) related to the wireless communication system includes a preconfigured number of probability distributions, and 2) the channel state information includes one or more probability distributions among the preconfigured number of probability distributions.”
However, Bagheri discloses the missing feature “wherein, based on information on the probability distribution used for offline learning of the neural network (NN) related to the wireless communication system being preconfigured: 1) the information on the probability distribution used for offline learning of the neural network (NN) related to the wireless communication system includes a preconfigured number of probability distributions, and 2) the channel state information includes one or more probability distributions among the preconfigured number of probability distributions.” ([¶ 0052]: “In some embodiments, statistical CSI can include a percentile (e.g., of SINR, or CQI corresponding to a cumulative distribution function (“CDF”), and/or a probability distribution function (“PDF”)), a mean, a variance, a standard deviation, a median of CQI corresponding to (e.g., post decoding) SINR samples, and so forth.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Xue and Bagheri, to modify the SNR as disclosed by Xue, to be a predetermined probability distribution as disclosed by Bagheri. The motivation for doing so is that it allows for indications through lower amounts of data, thus improving efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Xue with Bagheri to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 1 with the differences amounting to that claim 1 is directed towards a method while claim 10 is directed towards an apparatus containing generic hardware. Such hardware is taught by Xue in paragraph 96. Thus, claim 10 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 1, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 14, Xue discloses:
“A base station receiving channel state information in a wireless communication system, comprising: one or more transceivers; one or more processors controlling the one or more transceivers; and one or more memories operably connected to the one or more processors, and storing instructions that configure the one or more processors to perform operations based on being executed by the one or more processors, wherein the operations include:” ([¶ 0086]: “As shown in FIG. 2, the BS 200 includes multiple antennas 280a-280n, multiple radio frequency (RF) transceivers 282a-282n, transmit (TX or Tx) processing circuitry 284, and receive (RX or Rx) processing circuitry 286. The BS 200 also includes a controller/processor 288, a memory 290, and a backhaul or network interface 292.”)
“transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), a reference signal related to measurement of a channel;” ([¶ 0065]: “At block 504, the UE calculates CSI based on downlink reference signal measurements.”)
“receiving, from the UE, the channel state information generated based on the reference signal, wherein the channel state information includes at least one of 1) information related to a … based on the measurement of the channel or 2) information related to a difference between a … used for offline learning of a neural network (NN) related to the wireless communication system and the … based on the measurement of the channel; and” ([¶ 0066]: “At block 506, the UE generates a quantized CSI difference value based on a quantization of a difference between the calculated CSI and the CSI predicted based on the CSI prediction model.”; [¶ 0067]: “At block 508, the UE reports, to the network entity, the calculated CSI and the quantized CSI difference value.”)
“transmitting, to the UE, information including a NN parameter applied to the NN determined based on the channel state information,” ([¶ 0053]: “If the predictions are consistently inaccurate by more than a threshold amount, the UE can determine that the model is inaccurate and can update the training data set using recorded CSI and instruct the gNB to reconfigure the UE with an updated, retrained machine learning model.”)
“wherein the … based on the measurement of the channel is a … of at least one of channel power, channel amplitude, or signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) measured based on the reference signal.” ([¶ 0091]: “In another example, the series of prediction and ground-truth pairs may be based on one or more of early HARQ ACK/NACK statistics, a precoding matrix indicator (PMI), channel quality indicator (CQI), rank indicator (RI), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), or other measurements or statistics that may provide information…”)
Xue does not explicitly disclose “probability distribution.”
However, Bagheri discloses the missing feature “probability distribution” ([¶ 0052]: “In some embodiments, statistical CSI can include a percentile (e.g., of SINR, or CQI corresponding to a cumulative distribution function (“CDF”), and/or a probability distribution function (“PDF”)), a mean, a variance, a standard deviation, a median of CQI corresponding to (e.g., post decoding) SINR samples, and so forth.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Xue and Bagheri, to modify the SNR as disclosed by Xue, to be a probability distribution as disclosed by Bagheri. The motivation for doing so is that it takes into account a larger amount of data and is thus better representative. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Xue with Bagheri to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue (US 20210376895 A1) in view of Bagheri (US 20240172026 A1) and further in view of Thangaraj (US 20230403601 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Xue in view of Bagheri discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Xue does not explicitly disclose “wherein, based on the specific value being greater than or equal to a preconfigured value, at least one of the receiving of the reference signal, the generating of the channel state information, and/or the transmitting of the channel state information the method is performed again”
However, Thangaraj discloses the missing feature the “specific value” being greater than or equal to a preconfigured value. ([¶ 0130]: “In some examples, such as if given input as the second transmission to the AI component, a loss function for a WTRU may be configured as a difference between an output of an AI component and a first transmission. A WTRU may be configured with a cross-entropy loss function or a mean squared error loss function.”; [¶ 0136]: “A WTRU may determine that training is complete based on an earliest (e.g., a first occurrence) of the following conditions: the loss function is below a threshold; expiry of a time duration (e.g., expiry of a timer); or completion of a preconfigured number of epochs.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Xue and Thangaraj, to modify the repeating condition as disclosed by Xue, to be based on the specific value as disclosed by Thangaraj. The motivation for doing so is that it allows completing training in a more optimum manner, thus improving efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Xue with Thangaraj to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue (US 20210376895 A1) in view of Bagheri (US 20240172026 A1) and further in view of Ashrafi (US 20180248592 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Xue in view of Bagheri discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Xue does not explicitly disclose “wherein, based on the reference signal being related to a superimposed pilot signal transmitted in a same resource region as data, wherein a number of cases due to fading related to a resource region in which the reference signal is transmitted is excluded from a number of cases related to the probability distribution based on the measurement of the channel.”
However, Ashrafi discloses the missing feature the “specific value” being greater than or equal to a preconfigured value. ([¶ 0076]: “Using the information received from the pilot impulse signal, the channel 508 between the transmitter 504 and receiver 506 may be processed to determine channel state information at the receiver/base station 506 and remove noise, fading and other channel impairment issues from the channel 508.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Xue and Ashrafi, to modify the technique as disclosed by Xue, to exclude fading as disclosed by Ashrafi. The motivation for doing so is that it decreases errors and thus improves quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Xue with Ashrafi to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
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 SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights