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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-14 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/19/2025. The election is made final.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a transmission unit that transmits the first bit sequence or symbol sequence and the second bit sequence or symbol sequence in claim 1; a control unit that starts training of the AI/ML model constituting the encoder according to a training execution notification of the encoder in claim 5; a control unit that performs training of the AI/ML model constituting the encoder, wherein the control unit changes an encoding rate of the encoder in a course of the training in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Saber et al hereinafter Saber (US 2023/0131694).
Referring to Claim 1. Saber discloses a transmission device comprising: an encoder configured by an AI/ML model (encoder model that configure the encoder, refer to par 0005, 0028, 0031 to encode a channel matrix, precoding matrix, representation/complex signals etc., refer to par 0031, 0036), and configured to encode a first bit sequence or symbol sequence to acquire a second bit sequence or symbol sequence (encode matrix, and/or bit stream/representation/complex signal refer to par 0005, 0031, 0036, 0060, 0078-0081); and a transmission unit that transmits the first bit sequence or symbol sequence and the second bit sequence or symbol sequence (transmit the representation, refer to par 0036, 0045-0046, 0049, 0078-0081, 0157, 0203).
Referring to Claim 2. Sabar disclosed the transmission device according to claim 1: Sabar discloses wherein the transmission unit transmits the first bit sequence or symbol sequence aperiodically or in a semi-persistent manner (parameters inside the performance metrics is part of the first bit sequence, refer to par 0203, the values/parameter of a model when requested/shared are to be send, refer to par 0157, 0078-0081)
Referring to Claim 3. Sabar disclosed the transmission device according to claim 2: Saber discloses wherein the transmission unit transmits the first bit sequence or symbol sequence aperiodically according to an aperiodic transmission execution notification of the first bit sequence or symbol sequence (parameters inside the performance metrics is in part of the first bit sequence, refer to par 0203, the values/parameter of a model when requested/shared are to be send, refer to par 0157, 0078-0081).
Referring to Claim 4. Sabar disclosed the transmission device according to claim 2: Saber discloses wherein the transmission unit transmits the first bit sequence or symbol sequence in a semipersistent manner according to a semi-persistent transmission execution notification of the first bit sequence or symbol sequence (parameters inside the performance metrics is in part of the first bit sequence, refer to par 0203, the values/parameter of a model when requested/shared are to be send, refer to par 0157, 0078-0081).
Referring to Claim 5. Sabar disclosed the transmission device according to claim 1: Saber discloses a control unit that starts training of the AI/ML model constituting the encoder according to a training execution notification of the encoder (autoencoder includes the AI/ML, refer to par 0080, 0081 receive instruction to be trained, refer to par 0078-0081, 0094).
Referring to Claim 6. Sabar disclosed the transmission device according to claim 5, Saber discloses wherein the transmission unit is configured to: transmit a training execution completion notification of the encoder in a case where training of the AI/ML model constituting the encoder has succeeded (track performance of the ML model is acceptable, refer to par 0197); and transmit a training execution failure notification of the encoder in a case where training of the AI/ML model constituting the encoder has failed (notification of the failure or performance which constitute the failure counter, refer to par 0199, 0200, 0203).
Referring to Claim 15. Claim is rejected under similar rational as claims 1-6.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saber et al hereinafter Saber (US 2023/0131694) in view of Wang et al hereinafter Wang (US 20240365137)
Referring to Claim 7. Sabar with Wang disclosed the transmission device according to claim 1, Saber discloses a control unit that performs training of the AI/ML model constituting the encoder wherein the control unit changes an encoding rate of the encoder in a course of the training (update the training data set across time, frequency/ and/or space, refer to par 0046 and update the performance included in KPI, where it is obvious the KPI includes the encoding rates, refer to par 0197).
Although Sabar, in analogous art, disclosed the invention substantially as claimed, Sabar did not explicitly disclose the AL/ML modify the encoder algorithms to incorporate the rate changes.
Wang, in analogous art, discloses it is well known to for the encoding rate to be modify by the AL/ML model (refer to par 0023, 0024, Machine learning algorithm DNN modify the input/output by also adjusting the rate during the model training refer to par 0023,0024)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sabar with Wang, because Wang’s teaching would allow the system of Sabar by improve data throughput in the wireless communication system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN C TANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3116. The examiner can normally be reached on 5:30am - 2:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joon H Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. 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.
/KAREN C TANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447