DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to the communication filed on 02/02/2026. Claims 1-5, 25-26, 42 and 46-52 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/02/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The objection to the Specification is now withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 25-26, 42 and 46-52 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 to claims 1-17, 25-26 and 42 are now withdrawn in view of the claim amendments. However, upon further consideration in view of the amendments, new grounds of rejection are now made. See the rejection section for details.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 25, 42, 47-48 and 51-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20210376895 A1 (hereinafter Xue).
For Claim 1, Xue teaches a method performed by a terminal device (Xue exemplifies UE 802 in FIG. 8; para. [0023] “… Aspects of the present disclosure provide apparatus, methods, processing systems, and computer readable mediums for predicting channel state information (CSI) using machine learning models and qualifying predicted CSI based on a difference between the predicted CSI and measured CSI …”), the method comprising:
receiving, from a network device (Xue exemplifies a network entity gNB 804 in FIG. 8), first report configuration and a second report configuration (Xue teaches the UE receiving configuration to report quantized CSI difference value (i.e. the CSI prediction related information) corresponding to the first report configuration, and configuration to report the calculated (i.e. measured) CSI corresponding to the second report configuration, the first report configuration and the second report configuration may be included in one configuration message received by the UE; FIG. 6, FIG. 7, FIG. 8; para. [0069] “… Generally, the network entity can configure the UE to predict CSI and quantize one or more CSI difference values by transmitting, to the UE, a configuration message including the CSI prediction model and a qualifying scheme that the UE can use to quantize the accuracy of the CSI predicted using the CSI prediction model … the network entity may implicitly configure the UE to report the calculated CSI and the quantized CSI difference value …”; para. [0076] “… In each instance 702, the UE may measure CSI at time t+∆2 and calculate the difference between the measured CSI at time t+∆2 and the predicted CSL The difference between the measured CSI at time t+∆2 and the predicted CSI may be quantized according to a qualifying scheme that classifies the difference between the measured CSI at time t+∆2 and the predicted CSI into one of a plurality of categories …”; para. [0086] “… gNB 804 may configure UE 802 with information about measurement occasions in which reference signals are transmitted to UE 802 and reporting occasions in which CSI feedback reports are to be transmitted to gNB 804 ...”); and
transmitting, to the network device, a first message based on a channel state information (CSI) prediction corresponding to the first report configuration and a CSI measurement corresponding to the second report configuration (Xue teaches the UE reporting the quantized CSI difference value (i.e. the CSI prediction related information) corresponding to the first report configuration and the measured CSI corresponding to the second report configuration to the network entity; FIG. 8; para. [0089] “… After calculating the difference between the predicted CSI generated at 814 and the measured CSI generated by measuring reference signals 816 and quantizing the difference, UE 802 generates and transmits a message 820 including the measured CSI and the quantized difference 820 …”),
wherein:
the first report configuration comprises a first indication indicating a plurality of time units (Xue teaches the UE being possibly configured to make CSI predictions at several time units before reporting to the network entity; FIG. 7; para. [0073] “… FIG. 7 illustrates an example timeline of measuring CSI and predicting CSI based on the measured CSL Timeline 700 illustrates four instances 702a-702d of CSI measurement and prediction …”; para. [0077] “… In some aspects, the qualifying scheme may specify that a quantized difference value is to be generated based on a moving average over a time window W. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 7, the window W may cover four instances 702 of CSI measurements and predictions … By averaging differences between the measured CSI at time t+∆2 and the predicted CSI over a moving window W, the UE may account for CSI predictions made by the UE that may not be reported to the network entity (e.g., due to the UE being configured with a low-overhead configuration for CSI feedback, when CSI for a first carrier is based on measurements on a second carrier, etc.) …”),
the second report configuration comprises a second indication indicating a time unit among the plurality of time units (Xue teaches the UE being configured to measure the CSI at the same time unit as one of the time units to predict the CSI, e.g. at time t+∆2; FIG. 7; para. [0075] “… Given a time t representing a time at which the network entity receives CSI feedback from the UE, a UE may measure CSI and generate and transmit a CSI feedback report to the network entity at time t-∆1. Time t+∆2 represents a time at which the network entity will perform a transmission to the UE. Because channel conditions (and thus, the measured CSI) may change during the timing gap of ∆1 +∆2 between when the UE reports CSI to the network entity and when the network entity is to perform a transmission to the UE, the UE may predict the CSI at time t+∆2 using a prediction model that takes the measured CSI at time t-∆1 and the duration of the timing gap ∆1 +∆2 as inputs …”; para. [0076] “… In each instance 702, the UE may measure CSI at time t+∆2 and calculate the difference between the measured CSI at time t+∆2 and the predicted CSI …”), and
both the CSI prediction and the CSI measurement are obtained in the time unit (Xue teaches measuring and predicting CSI at time t+∆2; FIG. 7; para. [0075] “… the UE may predict the CSI at time t+∆2 using a prediction model that takes the measured CSI at time t-∆1 and the duration of the timing gap ∆1 +∆2 as inputs …”; para. [0076] “… In each instance 702, the UE may measure CSI at time t+∆2 and calculate the difference between the measured CSI at time t+∆2 and the predicted CSI …”).
For Claim 4, Xue teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first message comprises an indication indicating a difference between the CSI prediction and the CSI measurement (Xue teaches the UE reporting the quantized CSI difference value (i.e. the CSI prediction related information); FIG. 8; para. [0089] “… After calculating the difference between the predicted CSI generated at 814 and the measured CSI generated by measuring reference signals 816 and quantizing the difference, UE 802 generates and transmits a message 820 including the measured CSI and the quantized difference 820 …”).
For Claim 5, Xue teaches the method of claim 1,wherein the first report configuration and the second report configuration are associated with a same AI/ML model (Xue teaches the UE receiving configuration to report quantized CSI difference value (i.e. the CSI prediction related information) corresponding to the first report configuration, and configuration to report the calculated (i.e. measured) CSI corresponding to the second report configuration, the first report configuration and the second report configuration may be included in one configuration message comprising the ML based CSI prediction model; FIG. 4; para. [0050] “… As illustrated in FIG. 4, a machine learning (ML) based (CSI prediction) model may be trained to learn relationships between measured CSI at a first time, measured CSI at a second time, and the time delay between the first time and the second time …”; para. [0069] “… Generally, the network entity can configure the UE to predict CSI and quantize one or more CSI difference values by transmitting, to the UE, a configuration message including the CSI prediction model and a qualifying scheme that the UE can use to quantize the accuracy of the CSI predicted using the CSI prediction model … the network entity may implicitly configure the UE to report the calculated CSI and the quantized CSI difference value …”).
For Claim 25, Xue teaches a method performed by a network device (Xue exemplifies a network entity gNB 804 in FIG. 8; para. [0023] “… Aspects of the present disclosure provide apparatus, methods, processing systems, and computer readable mediums for predicting channel state information (CSI) using machine learning models and qualifying predicted CSI based on a difference between the predicted CSI and measured CSI …”), the method comprising:
transmitting, to a terminal device (Xue exemplifies UE 802 in FIG. 8), a first report configuration and a second report configuration (Xue teaches the network entity configuring the UE to report quantized CSI difference value (i.e. the CSI prediction related information) corresponding to the first report configuration, and configuration to report the calculated (i.e. measured) CSI corresponding to the second report configuration, the first report configuration and the second report configuration may be included in one configuration message received by the UE; FIG. 6, FIG. 7, FIG. 8; para. [0069] “… Generally, the network entity can configure the UE to predict CSI and quantize one or more CSI difference values by transmitting, to the UE, a configuration message including the CSI prediction model and a qualifying scheme that the UE can use to quantize the accuracy of the CSI predicted using the CSI prediction model … the network entity may implicitly configure the UE to report the calculated CSI and the quantized CSI difference value …”; para. [0076] “… In each instance 702, the UE may measure CSI at time t+∆2 and calculate the difference between the measured CSI at time t+∆2 and the predicted CSL The difference between the measured CSI at time t+∆2 and the predicted CSI may be quantized according to a qualifying scheme that classifies the difference between the measured CSI at time t+∆2 and the predicted CSI into one of a plurality of categories …”; para. [0086] “… gNB 804 may configure UE 802 with information about measurement occasions in which reference signals are transmitted to UE 802 and reporting occasions in which CSI feedback reports are to be transmitted to gNB 804 ...”); and
receiving, from the terminal device, a first message based on a channel state information (CSI) prediction corresponding to the first report configuration and a CSI measurement corresponding to the second report configuration (Xue teaches the UE reporting the quantized CSI difference value (i.e. the CSI prediction related information) corresponding to the first report configuration and the measured CSI corresponding to the second report configuration to the network entity; FIG. 8; para. [0089] “… After calculating the difference between the predicted CSI generated at 814 and the measured CSI generated by measuring reference signals 816 and quantizing the difference, UE 802 generates and transmits a message 820 including the measured CSI and the quantized difference 820 …”),
wherein:
the first report configuration comprises a first indication indicating a plurality of time units (Xue teaches the UE being possibly configured to make CSI predictions at several time units before reporting to the network entity; FIG. 7; para. [0073] “… FIG. 7 illustrates an example timeline of measuring CSI and predicting CSI based on the measured CSL Timeline 700 illustrates four instances 702a-702d of CSI measurement and prediction …”; para. [0077] “… In some aspects, the qualifying scheme may specify that a quantized difference value is to be generated based on a moving average over a time window W. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 7, the window W may cover four instances 702 of CSI measurements and predictions … By averaging differences between the measured CSI at time t+∆2 and the predicted CSI over a moving window W, the UE may account for CSI predictions made by the UE that may not be reported to the network entity (e.g., due to the UE being configured with a low-overhead configuration for CSI feedback, when CSI for a first carrier is based on measurements on a second carrier, etc.) …”),
the second report configuration comprises a second indication indicating a time unit among the plurality of time units (Xue teaches the UE being configured to measure the CSI at the same time unit as one of the time units to predict the CSI, e.g. at time t+∆2; FIG. 7; para. [0075] “… Given a time t representing a time at which the network entity receives CSI feedback from the UE, a UE may measure CSI and generate and transmit a CSI feedback report to the network entity at time t-∆1. Time t+∆2 represents a time at which the network entity will perform a transmission to the UE. Because channel conditions (and thus, the measured CSI) may change during the timing gap of ∆1 +∆2 between when the UE reports CSI to the network entity and when the network entity is to perform a transmission to the UE, the UE may predict the CSI at time t+∆2 using a prediction model that takes the measured CSI at time t-∆1 and the duration of the timing gap ∆1 +∆2 as inputs …”; para. [0076] “… In each instance 702, the UE may measure CSI at time t+∆2 and calculate the difference between the measured CSI at time t+∆2 and the predicted CSI …”), and
both the CSI prediction and the CSI measurement are obtained in the time unit (Xue teaches measuring and predicting CSI at time t+∆2; FIG. 7; para. [0075] “… the UE may predict the CSI at time t+∆2 using a prediction model that takes the measured CSI at time t-∆1 and the duration of the timing gap ∆1 +∆2 as inputs …”; para. [0076] “… In each instance 702, the UE may measure CSI at time t+∆2 and calculate the difference between the measured CSI at time t+∆2 and the predicted CSI …”).
For Claim 42, the claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim 47, the claim is substantially similar to claim 4 and therefore is rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim 48, the claim is substantially similar to claim 5 and therefore is rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim 51, the claim is substantially similar to claim 4 and therefore is rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim 52, the claim is substantially similar to claim 5 and therefore is rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
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 2, 26 and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210376895 A1 (hereinafter Xue), in view of US 20230300654 A1 (hereinafter Silva).
For Claim 2, Xue teaches the method of claim 1. Xue does not explicitly teach, but Silva teaches wherein the second report configuration is linked to the first report configuration by a report configuration identifier (Silva teaches an identifier in the configuration of the measurement or prediction report; Examiner notes that the examination of limitation “linked” is applied under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification, since the claim does not clearly defining what the linking is based on (such as the same UE, or the same time unit); FIG. 7; para. [0474] “… The network node 101 may be adapted to, e.g. by means of the receiving unit 710, receive the message comprises receiving the prediction report in accordance with the transmitted configuration …”; para. [0475] “… The configuration of the measurement or prediction report may comprise an identifier for each configured report, and the identifier may be comprised in the received measurement or prediction report …”).
Silva and Xue are analogous art because they are both related to wireless communications network.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the adding the identifier to the configuration of the measurement or prediction report techniques of Silva with the system of Xue to facilitate the report of predictions of information related to failures to improve throughput (Silva, ¶ 0031).
For Claim 26, the claim is substantially similar to claim 2 and therefore is rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim 49, the claim is substantially similar to claim 2 and therefore is rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 3, 46 and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210376895 A1 (hereinafter Xue), in view of US 20220335337 A1 (hereinafter Kovacs).
For Claim 3, Xue teaches the method of claim 1. Xue does not explicitly teach, but Kovacs teaches further comprising: transmitting, to the network device, a second message comprising a selected artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) functionality from a plurality of AI/ML functionalities (Kovacs teaches a producer node/UE selecting ML based functionality and exemplifies the communication between the producer node/UE and the consumer node/gNB in FIG. 4; para. [0040] “… In an example embodiment, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the producer node (e.g. a UE) to at least perform: selecting at least one machine learning based functionality among the machine learning based functionalities; and causing transmission of an activation request to activate the selected at least one machine learning based functionality to the producer node …”).
Kovacs and Xue are analogous art because they are both related to wireless communications network.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the selecting the ML based functionality techniques of Kovacs with the system of Xue to “enable efficient configuration of the machine learning based assistance while at the same time keeping the signaling overhead at a low level between the consumer node and the producer node” (Kovacs, ¶ 0003).
For Claim 46, Xue teaches the method of claim 25. Xue does not explicitly teach, but Kovacs teaches further comprising: receiving, from the terminal device, a second message comprising a selected artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) functionality from a plurality of AI/ML functionalities (Kovacs teaches a producer node/UE selecting ML based functionality and exemplifies the communication between the producer node/UE and the consumer node/gNB in FIG. 4; para. [0040] “… In an example embodiment, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the producer node (e.g. a UE) to at least perform: selecting at least one machine learning based functionality among the machine learning based functionalities; and causing transmission of an activation request to activate the selected at least one machine learning based functionality to the producer node …”).
Kovacs and Xue are analogous art because they are both related to wireless communications network.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the selecting the ML based functionality techniques of Kovacs with the system of Xue to “enable efficient configuration of the machine learning based assistance while at the same time keeping the signaling overhead at a low level between the consumer node and the producer node” (Kovacs, ¶ 0003).
For Claim 50, the claim is substantially similar to claim 3 and therefore is rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed below, thank you:
i. US 20210359742 A1 (hereinafter Mondal) teaches configuring, measuring, and reporting channel state information. In one embodiment, an apparatus for a user equipment device (UE) includes processors configured to determine first channel state information (CSI) reference signal (RS) resource associated with a serving cell for the UE and determine a second CSI-RS resource associated with a non-serving cell for the UE. A first reference signal received in the first CSI-RS resource and a second reference signal received in the second CSI-RS resource are measured. First report quantities characterizing a channel between the UE and the serving cell are calculated based on the measurement
of the first reference signal and second report quantities characterizing a channel between the UE and the non-serving cell are calculated based on the measurement of the second reference signal. The first and second report quantities are reported to the serving cell (Abstract).
ii. US 20220386292 A1 (hereinafter Hajri) teaches receive a radio resource control configuration including at least one channel state information reporting configuration indicating at least one channel state information quantity for which prediction is configured or enabled; receive at least one of a downlink reference signal and/or a downlink channel for at least one of channel measurement and/or interference measurement; determine the at least one channel state information quantity or at least one channel state information prediction model, based on at least one of a downlink reference measurement, and/or a downlink channel decoding outcome, and/or the at least one channel state information reporting configuration, and/or at least one prediction window; and transmit a channel state information report in uplink control information, based on the determining (Abstract).
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 ZONGHUA DU whose telephone number is (408)918-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 PM PST.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
/Z.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights