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 .
Specification
The substitute specification filed 10/16/2024 has been entered.
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 3, 5, 7-8, 10, 17, 22-24 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 5, “the product” should be replaced by “a product”.
claim 5, line 4, “at least” should be replaced by “the at least” or “said at least” for consistency with antecedent in claim 1, line 9.
Claim 7, line 1, the limitation “to any one of claim 1” is improper and should be replaced by a limitation such as “to claim 1”; claim 7, line 7, “of n” should be replaced by “of the n” or by “of said n” for consistency with antecedent in claim 1, line 6; claim 7, line 10, please spell out “ID”.
Claim 17, line 5, “the product” should be replaced by “a product”.
Claim 22, line 3, “a cloud” should be replaced by “the cloud”.
Claim 23, line 7, “of n” should be replaced by “of the n” or by “of said n” for consistency with antecedent in claim 15, line 6.
Claim 26, line 2, please spell out “ID”.
Any claim whose base claim is objected is likewise objected.
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 5, 16-17 and 24 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.
Claim 5, line 4, “a beam quality” is vague and indefinite as there is an unclear antecedent in claim 1, line 9.
Claim 16, line 2, “a terminal” is vague and indefinite as there is an unclear antecedent in claim 15, line 6.
Claim 24, line 9, “the first beam prediction module” lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears that “the first beam prediction model” was intended. Please correct.
Claim 17 is rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 13, 15, 20, 21, 27, 31 and 32 are allowed.
Claims 5, 16-17 and 24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 3, 7-8, 10, 22-23 and 26 would be allowable if amended to overcome the objection sets forth above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: a beam prediction method and apparatus are disclosed. The closest prior art Shi Yuan et al, CN 116847368A discloses a similar method and apparatus comprising : inputting a beam quality into a beam prediction model (note at least fig. 3, step 301), and obtaining a beam prediction at the output of the prediction module (see description of step 301, fig. 3). However, it fails to teach” the beam quality of a first transmission beam obtained based on a first reception beam into a first beam prediction model, and obtaining a beam quality of a second transmission beam based on the first reception beam through the first beam prediction model,” as recited in the base claims. Such limitations, as recited in combination with the other claim limitations, are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the Shi Yuan et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN B CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-3020. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-3:00PM Monday-Thursday.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/JEAN B CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights