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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments filed 08/18/2026 have been considered for examination.
With regard to the objections to Specification (Title), Applicant’s arguments filed 08/18/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the objections to Specification have been withdrawn.
With regard to the 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 08/18/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are moot (persuasive) in view of reasons set forth below.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pezeshki et al (US Publication No. 2021/0195462 A1)1 in view of Sewerinson et al (US Publication No. 4,447,903).
Regarding claim 2, Pezeshki discloses, a base station device [FIGS. 5-6; their related descriptions; ¶0060, BS 504 or 110] comprising:
transmission circuitry [see combinations of 234, 232, 230 and 220 as a transmitter of the BS 110 in FIG. 2; note that every BS has at least one transmitter] configured to transmit a reference signal, a machine learning model, and a second machine model that is different from the first machine learning model [FIGS. 5-6; their related descriptions; ¶0057, the UE 502 receives, from the BS 504, a configuration 510 to be used for the compression; further see ¶0060, the configuration 510 may be indication of at least one AL module (note: since the at least one AL module can encompass a case where two AL modules are indicated by the BS, the two AL modules correspond to the claimed first and second machine learning models) to be used for the compression of one or more measurements corresponding to the reference signal 506; further see ¶0066, the AI modules (note: two or more AL modules) for different purposes (at the UE and the BS) may be configured and AI module indices may be signaled to UE via RRC, MAC-CE, or physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), as described herein]; and
reception circuitry [see combinations of 234, 232, 236 and 238 as a receiver of the BS 110 in FIG. 2; note that every BS has at least one receiver] configured to receive a CSI report [FIGS. 5-6; their related descriptions; ¶0057, the UE 502 transmits a codeword 514 generated by compressing one or more measurements corresponding to the reference signal 506; further see ¶0046, UE may use AI to compress feedback to a BS in accordance with a configuration for the compression to be performed as indicated by the BS; further see ¶0067, moreover, the aspects described herein are applicable to any type of feedback from the UE and is not limited to specific examples described herein, such as CSI feedback]; wherein the CSI related data is compressed into a first compressed CSI data and a second compressed CSI data, by the first machine learning model and the second machine learning model, respectively [¶0065-0066, data of different feedback parameters are compressed by AL modules for different purposes; which means that at least two different feedback parameters/CSI related data are compressed using different AL modules for different purposes; see ¶0065, a specific AI module and compression ratio may be configured and used for such purpose and ¶0066, the compressed data may be multiplexed with other parameters such as CQI, RI, PMI, L1-RSRP for example. For instance, the UE may calculate one or more feedback parameters, such as CQI, RI, PMI, or RSRP, and multiplex the one or more feedback parameters with the compressed data (codeword) for transmission to the BS. The AI modules for different purposes (at the UE and the BS) may be configured and AI module indices may be signaled to UE];
the CSI report includes the first compressed CSI data and the second compressed CSI data [¶0065-0066, data of at least two different feedback parameters (i.e., first and second compressed CSI data) compressed using the AL modules are transmitted to the BS as a report]; and
the reception circuitry [see combinations of 234, 232, 236 and 238 as a receiver of the BS 110 in FIG. 2; note that every BS has at least one receiver] to further configured to:
decompress the first compressed CSI data into a first decompressed CSI data and decompress the second compressed CSI data into a second decompressed CSI data [¶0070, the BS may include the AI decoder 520 having one or more AI modules 522 to decompress the codeword 612 and generate a decompressed codeword; further see ¶0057, the UE 502 may perform one or more measurements and compress the one or more measurements using an AI encoder 508 (e.g., via one of AI module(s) 512) . . . the AI encoder 508 may compress one or more measurements corresponding to the reference signal 506 and generate a codeword 514, in accordance with the configuration 510; note that further referring to ¶0065-0066, the at least two different feedback data are compressed and transmitted to the base station, and the base station decompresses the at least two compressed data to generate corresponding the decompressed codewords].
Although Pezeshki discloses, “decompress the first compressed CSI data into a first decompressed CSI data and decompress the second compressed CSI data into a second decompressed CSI data”, Pezeshki does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations),
determine that the first decompressed CSI data and the second decompressed data are valid in a case that the first decompressed CSI data and the second decompressed CSI data are same; and
determine that the first decompressed CSI data and the second decompressed data are invalid in a case that the first decompressed CSI data and the second decompressed CSI data are different.
However, Sewerinson discloses,
determine that the first data and the second data are valid in a case that the first data and the second data are same [abstract and claim 1, decoding said first and second encoded binary pulse trains to obtain third and fourth binary pulse trains . . . comparing bit occurrences in said third and fourth decoded binary pulse trains (note that the third and fourth decoded pulse trains correspond to the claimed first and second data) to determine if an error has occurred; responsive to a detected error and to subsequently detected errors occurring at said error propagation intervals to determine in which said data channel said path error occurred; note that since determining an error when the third and fourth decoded pulse trains (in bits) are compared implicitly means that determining no error (i.e., valid) based on the compared results]; and
determine that the first data and the second data are invalid in a case that the first data and the second data are different [abstract and claim 1, decoding said first and second encoded binary pulse trains to obtain third and fourth binary pulse trains . . . comparing bit occurrences in said third and fourth decoded binary pulse trains (note that the third and fourth decoded pulse trains correspond to the claimed first and second data) to determine if an error has occurred; responsive to a detected error and to subsequently detected errors occurring at said error propagation intervals to determine in which said data channel said path error occurred; further see column 6, line 54 to column 7, line 43].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Pezeshki with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Sewerinson to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Sewerinson into the system of Pezeshki would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensure to verify integrity and reliability of data at issues, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
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 SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm(M-T).
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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
1 Pezeshki was cited in an IDS by the applicant.
Prosecution Insights