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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 10, 17 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8, 9 of copending Application No. 18850190 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Independent Claims
Claim(s) 1, 10, 17, 29, 30, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sayana (WO-2013191441-A1).
As to claim 1, 17, 29, 30: Sayana teaches a method for switching a channel status indicator (CSI) processing mode, being performed by a terminal and comprising: receiving a switching instruction sent by a network device (p.44, 50, 65); and switching, based on the switching instruction, from a first CSI processing mode to a second CSI processing mode (p.44, 50, 65 The use of Mode 2-2 or alternate Mode 2-2 can be indicated by a higher layer parameter or dynamically signaled parameter with DCI).
As to claim 10, 34: Sayana teaches a method for switching a channel status indicator (CSI) processing mode, being performed by a terminal and comprising: switching from a first CSI processing mode to a second CSI processing mode (p.44, 50, 65 The UE measures the CSI of individual CSI-RS resources and switches between the reporting types based on the best CQI or RSRP.); and sending a notification instruction to a network device, wherein the notification instruction is used to indicate the network device to process CSI feedback information of the terminal based on the second CSI processing mode (p.35, 44 A CSI report on the other hand is a feedback report that is sent in an uplink subframe with an associated CSI configuration and a serving cell and belongs to one of the report types and includes feedback elements like PMI/CQI/RI).
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.
Dependent Claims
Claim(s) 2, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayana (WO-2013191441-A1) in view of Liu (CN-113922936-A).
As to claim 2, 11: Sayana teaches the method according to claim 1, … ; or the first CSI processing mode is an Al-based CSI processing mode, and the second CSI processing mode is a CSI processing mode other than the Al-based CSI processing mode; or, the second CSI processing mode is an Al-based CSI processing mode, and the first CSI processing mode is a CSI processing mode other than the Al-based CSI processing mode.
Sayana may not explicitly teach wherein: the first CSI processing mode is a CSI processing mode based on a first artificial intelligence (AI) model, and the second CSI processing mode is a CSI processing mode based on a second AI model. However, Liu teaches wherein: the first CSI processing mode is a CSI processing mode based on a first artificial intelligence (AI) model, and the second CSI processing mode is a CSI processing mode based on a second AI model (step 104, processing CSI raw data with the selected AI model, generating result data; In this embodiment, the network device through PDSCH sending the first information. the first information comprises N= 2 sets of models, corresponding respectively two CSI configurations, such as channel state information pilot frequency (CSI-RS) 16 port and 8 port configuration, CSI feedback model used. 2 sets of models can be deep neural network (DNN) model or a convolutional neural network module (CNN) model, each set of model is composed of neuron arrangement mode and each neuron associated parameter; if CSI-RS adopts 16 port, then selecting model 1, CSI-RS uses 8 port to use model 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement CSI AI processing, taught by Liu, into the communication system, taught by Sayana, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable the UE to switch between AI models to match operating conditions. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Liu and Sayana in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 3, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayana (WO-2013191441-A1), Liu (CN-113922936-A) in view of Li, Haozhen, et al. “CSI Sensing and Feedback: A Semi-Supervised Learning Approach.” arXiv, 26 Sept. 2021, arXiv:2110.06142; Chakraborty (US-20210367701).
As to claim 3, 12: Sayana teaches the method according to claim 2,
Sayana may not explicitly teach wherein: the first AI model is an AI model corresponding to a first channel environment, and the second AI model is an Al model corresponding to a second channel environment. However, Li teaches wherein: the first AI model is an AI model corresponding to a first channel environment, and the second AI model is an Al model corresponding to a second channel environment (p.1 using indoor and outdoor so-called wireless channel environments as the pseudo labels for CSI data; p.4 After the UE side semi-supervised module is well-trained, two streams of AEs for indoor and outdoor respectively are trained with classified indoor and outdoor CSI data on their loss function).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement AI model corresponding to channel environment, taught by Li, into the communication system, taught by Sayana, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and adapt to different channel enviroments. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Sayana and Li in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Sayana may not explicitly teach wherein, a transmission rate corresponding to the first channel environment is different from a transmission rate corresponding to the second channel environment. However, Chakraborty teaches wherein, a transmission rate corresponding to the first channel environment is different from a transmission rate corresponding to the second channel environment ([025, 33, 34, 64] Each wireless device 101 transmits at a best possible data rate for themselves, which could depend on the signal quality and application requirements).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement transmit rate for a channel environment, taught by Chakraborty, into the communication system, taught by Sayana, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and select AI model suited for channel conditions. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Chakraborty and Sayana in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 4, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayana (WO-2013191441-A1), Liu (CN-113922936-A) in view of Zhang (US-20210295174).
As to claim 4, 13: Sayana teaches the method according to claim 2.
Sayana may not explicitly teach wherein: the first AI model is an AI model corresponding to a first AI processing capability, and the second AI model is an AI model corresponding to a second AI processing capability; wherein, a delay corresponding to the first AI processing capability is different from a delay corresponding to the second AI processing capability. However, Zhang teaches wherein: the first AI model is an AI model corresponding to a first AI processing capability, and the second AI model is an AI model corresponding to a second AI processing capability ([0032, 62-65] The multi-capacity model may comprise a set of nested or descendent models, each of which offers a unique resource-accuracy trade-off); wherein, a delay corresponding to the first AI processing capability is different from a delay corresponding to the second AI processing capability ([0041, 66, 68, 102] The processing latency 46, memory footprint 48, and accuracy 50 characteristics of each descendant model 40 of the multi-capacity model 44 are identified and stored in an overall model profile 52 of the multi-capacity model 44).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement AI processing delay, taught by Zhang, into the communication system, taught by Sayana, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and improve efficiency by selecting best AI model for delay. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Zhang and Sayana in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 5, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayana (WO-2013191441-A1) in view of Zhang (US-20210295174).
As to claim 5, 14: Sayana teaches the method according to claim 1,
Sayana may not explicitly teach wherein: the first CSI processing mode is an Al-based CSI processing mode … and the second CSI processing mode is an Al-based CSI processing mode. However, Liu teaches wherein: the first CSI processing mode is an Al-based CSI processing mode … and the second CSI processing mode is an Al-based CSI processing mode (step 104, processing CSI raw data with the selected AI model, generating result data; In this embodiment, the network device through PDSCH sending the first information. the first information comprises N= 2 sets of models, corresponding respectively two CSI configurations, such as channel state information pilot frequency (CSI-RS) 16 port and 8 port configuration, CSI feedback model used. 2 sets of models can be deep neural network (DNN) model or a convolutional neural network module (CNN) model, each set of model is composed of neuron arrangement mode and each neuron associated parameter; if CSI-RS adopts 16 port, then selecting model 1, CSI-RS uses 8 port to use model 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement CSI AI processing, taught by Liu, into the communication system, taught by Sayana, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable the UE to switch between AI models to match operating conditions. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Liu and Sayana in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Sayana may not explicitly teach corresponding to a first AI processing capability, corresponding to a second AI processing capability; wherein, a delay corresponding to the first AI processing capability is less than different from a delay corresponding to the second AI processing. However, Zhang teaches corresponding to a first AI processing capability, corresponding to a second AI processing capability ([0032, 62-65] The multi-capacity model may comprise a set of nested or descendent models, each of which offers a unique resource-accuracy trade-off); wherein, a delay corresponding to the first AI processing capability is less than different from a delay corresponding to the second AI processing ([0041, 66, 68, 102] The processing latency 46, memory footprint 48, and accuracy 50 characteristics of each descendant model 40 of the multi-capacity model 44 are identified and stored in an overall model profile 52 of the multi-capacity model 44).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement AI processing delay, taught by Zhang, into the communication system, taught by Sayana, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and improve efficiency by selecting best AI model for delay. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Zhang and Sayana in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 15, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayana (WO-2013191441-A1) in view of Pezeshki (US-20210195462).
As to claim 15, 22: Sayana teaches the method according to claim 10,
Sayana may not explicitly teach wherein: the first CSI processing mode is an Al-based CSI processing mode, and the second CSI processing mode is a non-Al-based CSI processing mode; or, the second CSI processing mode is an Al-based CSI processing mode, and the first CSI processing mode is a non-Al-based CSI processing mode other than the Al-based CSI processing mode. However, Pezeshki teaches wherein: the first CSI processing mode is an Al-based CSI processing mode, and the second CSI processing mode is a non-Al-based CSI processing mode; or, the second CSI processing mode is an Al-based CSI processing mode, and the first CSI processing mode is a non-Al-based CSI processing mode other than the Al-based CSI processing mode ([0046, 49]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement AI and non-AI based CSI, taught by Pezeshki, into the communication system, taught by Sayana, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and flexibility in the face of changing conditions. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Pezeshki and Sayana in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 16, 23, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayana (WO-2013191441-A1) in view of Sayana (US-20130336214).
As to claim 16: Sayana teaches the method according claim 10.
Sayana may not explicitly teach further comprising: sending the CSI feedback information to the network device, wherein the CSI feedback information carries indication information of the second CSI processing mode used by the terminal. However, Sayana ‘214 teaches further comprising: sending the CSI feedback information to the network device ([0137, 399] a precoder type indication (PTI) is sent along with RI in a single report for 8Tx feedback), wherein the CSI feedback information carries indication information of the second CSI processing mode used by the terminal ([0399, 411] When PTI=0, the UE sends wideband CQI feedback and wideband first PMI (W1) feedback and wideband second PMI (W2) feedback as shown in FIG. 8A. When PTI=1, the UE reports wideband CQI, wideband W2, subband CQI and subband W2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement CSI feedback indication, taught by Sayana ’214, into the communication system, taught by Sayana, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and ensure correct processing of CSI feedback. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Sayana ‘214 and Sayana in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
As to claim 23: Sayana teaches the method according to claim 17.
Sayana may not explicitly teach wherein the switching instruction is a semi-static instruction or a dynamic instruction. However, Sayana ‘214 teaches wherein the switching instruction is a semi-static instruction or a dynamic instruction ([0321, 388, 389] dynamically signaled parameter with DCI).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement dynamic signaling, taught by Sayana ’214, into the communication system, taught by Sayana, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable responsiveness to changing conditions. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Sayana ‘214 and Sayana in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
As to claim 25: Sayana teaches the method according to claim 17.
Sayana may not explicitly teach wherein the switching instruction is carried in downlink control information (DCI). However, Sayana ‘214 teaches wherein the switching instruction is carried in downlink control information (DCI) ([0321, 388, 389] dynamically signaled parameter with DCI).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement dynamic signaling, taught by Sayana ’214, into the communication system, taught by Sayana, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable responsiveness to changing conditions. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Sayana ‘214 and Sayana in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayana (WO-2013191441-A1) in view of Lee (US-20210110261).
As to claim 24: Sayana teaches the method according to claim 17.
Sayana may not explicitly teach wherein before sending the switching instruction to the terminal, the method further comprises: receiving a switching request sent by the terminal, wherein the switching request is used to request switching of the CSI processing mode. However, Lee teaches wherein before sending the switching instruction to the terminal ([0146-149]), the method further comprises: receiving a switching request sent by the terminal, wherein the switching request is used to request switching of the CSI processing mode ([0146-149] the UE 1401 may request the BS 1402 to switch to mode 1 or mode 3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement switching CSI mode, taught by Lee, into the communication system, taught by Sayana, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable UE to switch based on changing conditions. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Lee and Sayana in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/ANDREW C OH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights