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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it should not repeat information given in the title and avoid using phrases which can be implied. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 32-51 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “second device” without reciting “first device” so it is unclear what element or feature the “second device” is second to. Examiner suggests changing “apparatus” to “first device” for clarity. Also, the dependency of claim 45 has a typo because it cannot depend on itself. It should be changed to “The system of claim 44” or another previous claim. Also, regarding claims 34-35, 41-42 and 48-49, it is unclear how beams are an index. Appropriate correction is required.
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 32-51 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.
The term “highest” in claim 32 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “highest” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how highest is determined and relative to what.
The term “highest” in claim 39 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “highest” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how highest is determined and relative to what.
The term “highest” in claim 46 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “highest” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how highest is determined and relative to what.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the RSRP" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 39 recites the limitation "the RSRP" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 46 recites the limitation "the RSRP" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "data or information" in line 2. It is unclear whether that “data” is referring to the data in the parent claim and whether that “information” is referring to the continual learning information in the parent claim.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "data or information" in line 2. It is unclear whether that “data” is referring to the data in the parent claim and whether that “information” is referring to the continual learning information in the parent claim.
Claim 47 recites the limitation "data or information" in line 2. It is unclear whether that “data” is referring to the data in the parent claim and whether that “information” is referring to the continual learning information in the parent claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "wherein the apparatus comprises…" in line 2. It is unclear whether that “apparatus” is referring to the apparatus of claim 32, 33, 35, 36 or 37.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the continual learning configuration" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "the continual learning configuration" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 43 recites the limitation "the continual learning configuration" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 44 recites the limitation "the continual learning configuration" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 50 recites the limitation "the continual learning configuration" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 51 recites the limitation "the continual learning configuration" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Guan (US 2025/0379634) details model inference for beam selection.
Naik (US 2024/0135231) details reinforcement learning-based enhanced distributed channel access.
Kang (US 2021/0352705) details transmitting and receiving plurality of PDSCH.
Landis (US 10,666,342) details beam management using adaptive learning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jasper Kwoh whose telephone number is (408)918-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Friday, 10am to 4pm Pacific.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/JASPER KWOH/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights