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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) were submitted on 07/06/2026 and 02/24/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 6, 14 and 17 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 3 recites, “-- information on at least one reference signal and/or at least one Synchronization Signal Block (SSB)” (lines 2-3). It is suggested to replace it with “-- information on one or more of at least one reference signal or at least one Synchronization Signal Block (SSB)” for more clarity. Claim 17 is objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Claim 6 recites, “-- information on the present measurement result --” (line 3). It is suggested to replace it with “-- the information on the present measurement result --” for more clarity.
Claim 14 recites, “-- at least one of a user equipment, a network, or an autonomous vehicle --” (lines 2-3). It is suggested to replace it with “-- at least one of: a user equipment; a network; or an autonomous vehicle --” for more clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 12, 14-15, 17-19 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue et al (US Publication No. 2021/0376895 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Xue discloses, a method, comprising:
receiving, by a wireless device from a network, a measurement configuration including a measurement object [FIG. 8; its related descriptions; ¶0085-0088, UE 802 receives CSI prediction model (step 810) and reference signals 812 and 816; further see ¶0086, NB 804 may configure UE 802 with information about measurement occasions in which reference signals are transmitted to UE 802 and reporting occasions in which CSI feedback reports are to be transmitted to gNB 804; note that reference signals are considered as the claimed measurement object; further see ¶0069, the network entity can configure the UE to predict CSI and quantize one or more CSI difference values by transmitting, to the UE, a configuration message including the CSI prediction model and a qualifying scheme that the UE can use to quantize the accuracy of the CSI predicted using the CSI prediction model];
deriving, by the wireless device at a first time point, a predictive measurement result for the measurement object for a second time point [FIG. 8; its related descriptions; ¶0087-0088, the UE predicts CSI at a future time using the prediction model (step 810); further see ¶0075, when the network entity is to perform a transmission to the UE, the UE may predict the CSI at time t+Δ2 (i.e., second time point); note that a time at which the UE predicts the CSI is considered as the claimed first time point];
acquiring, by the wireless device, a present measurement result by performing measurement on the measurement object at the second time point [FIG. 8; its related descriptions; ¶0087-0088, the UE measures CSI based on the reference signals (step 814 and 818); further see ¶0076, in each instance 702, the UE may measure CSI at time t+Δ2 (i.e., second time point); note that reference signals are considered as the claimed measurement object]; and
based on difference between the predictive measurement result and the present measurement result, transmitting, by the wireless device, information about the difference to the network [FIG. 8; its related descriptions; ¶0088, the UE calculates a difference between the predicted CSI generated at 814 and the measured CSI generated by measuring reference signals 816 (step 818); further see ¶0089, the UE 802 generates and transmits a message 820 including the measured CSI and the quantized difference (step 820)].
Although the aspect of Xue with reference to FIG. 8 discloses, “deriving, by the wireless device at a first time point, a predictive measurement result for the measurement object for a second time point” as set forth above, the aspect of Xue with reference to FIG. 8 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), transmitting, by the wireless device to the network, information about the predictive measurement result.
However, the other aspect of Xue with reference to FIG. 9 discloses, deriving, by the wireless device at a first time point, a predictive measurement result for the measurement object for a second time point [FIG. 9; its related descriptions; ¶0094, the UE predicts CSI at a future time using the prediction model (step 914)], and transmitting, by the wireless device to the network, information about the predictive measurement result [FIG. 9; its related descriptions; ¶0095, the UE transmits a message 920 including the predicted CSI to gNB 904 (step 920)].
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 the aspect of Xue with reference to FIG. 8 with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by the other aspect of Xue with reference to FIG. 9 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 the other aspect of Xue with reference to FIG. 9 into the system of the aspect of Xue with reference to FIG. 8 would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling the network to anticipate future channel conditions and proactively optimize resource allocation and link adaptation based on predicted CSI, 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)).
Regarding claim 3, Xue discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Xue further discloses, wherein the measurement object includes information on at least one reference signal [¶0095, the UE measures CSI based on the reference signals (step 918); note that reference signals are considered as the claimed information non measurement object].
Regarding claim 4, Xue discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Xue further discloses, wherein the measurement configuration includes a reporting condition [FIG. 8; its related descriptions; ¶0085 (further see ¶0062), the qualifying scheme 810 identifies qualifying rules for determining whether a predicted CSI is a qualified prediction or an unqualified prediction; further see ¶0088, UE 802 may generate the quantized difference value into one of a plurality of values based on rules included in the qualifying scheme for classifying the difference value; further see ¶0089, UE 802 . . . transmits a message 820 including the measured CSI and the quantized difference 820; note that the quantized difference values are classified into qualified predictions or unqualified predictions based on qualifying rules included in the qualifying scheme, and the quantized difference values are transmitted/reported to the gNB. Thus, the qualifying rules in the qualifying scheme are considered as a reporting condition to correspond to a condition that the UE uses to report the difference values to the gNB].
Regarding claim 5, Xue discloses, the method of claim 4 as set forth above.
Xue further discloses, wherein the second time point is a time point at which the predictive measurement result satisfies the reporting condition [¶0085 (further see ¶0062), the qualifying scheme 810 identifies qualifying rules for determining whether a predicted CSI is a qualified prediction or an unqualified prediction; further see ¶0081, the predicted CSI corresponds to a qualified prediction; note that the predicted CSI is determined for time t+Δ2 (i.e., second time point) (see ¶0075)].
Regarding claim 12, Xue discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Xue further discloses, configuring, by the wireless device, a machine learning model,
wherein the predictive measurement result for the measurement object is derived by the machine learning model [FIG. 8; its related descriptions; ¶0085, to configure UE 802 to predict CSI based on a CSI prediction model, gNB 804 transmits CSI prediction model and qualifying scheme 810 to the UE. The CSI prediction model, as discussed, may be a machine learning model configured to execute on the UE and predict CSI; further see ¶0050].
Regarding claim 14, Xue discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Xue discloses, wherein the wireless device is in communication with at least one of a network [FIG. 9; its related descriptions; note that the UE 902 is in communication with the gNB 904 which is a part of a network; further see FIG. 1 and its related descriptions, each UE 120 is in communication with a corresponding base station 110 which is connected to its higher network such as a network controller 130 and core network 132].
Regarding claim 15, Xue discloses, a wireless device [FIGS. 7-9; their related descriptions; ¶0092, UE 902] comprising:
a transceiver [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; ¶0097, transceiver 1008; note that every wireless device has at least one transceiver];
a memory [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; ¶0098, memory 1012; note that every wireless device has at least one memory]; and
at least one processor operatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; ¶0098, processor 1004 coupled with the transceiver and the memory; note that every wireless device has at least one processor].
Since claim 15 recites similar features to claim 1 without additional features, claim 15 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 5.
Regarding claim 32, Xue discloses, a base station in a wireless communication system [FIGS. 7-9; their related descriptions; ¶0092, gNB 904] comprising:
a transceiver [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0099, transceiver 1108; note that every base station has at least one transceiver];
a memory [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; ¶0100, memory 1112; note that every base station has at least one memory]; and
a processor operatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; ¶0100, processor 1114 coupled with the transceiver and the memory; note that every base station has at least one processor].
Since claim 32 is merely different from claim 1 in that it recites claimed features from the perspective of a base station, but recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue et al (US Publication No. 2021/0376895 A1) in view of Cui et al (US Publication No. 2022/0303842 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Xue discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Xue does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Cui discloses, wherein the measurement object includes information on at least one cell [¶0037, the RRM measurement configuration may include information such as CSI-RS resource information, cell IDs, and associated SSB indication].
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 Xue with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Cui 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 Cui into the system of Xue would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling user equipment to identify a target cell and ensuring accurate, cell-specific measurement for mobility and network optimization, 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)).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 2.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue et al (US Publication No. 2021/0376895 A1) in view of Phrasad et al (US Publication No. 2022/0271851 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Xue discloses, the method of claim 5 and particularly, “the present measurement result at the second time point” as set forth above.
Xue does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Phrasad discloses, transmitting, by the wireless device to the network, information on the present measurement result based on that the present measurement result at the second time point does not satisfy the reporting condition [¶0040, the network may configure resource configuration and report threshold configuration to enable the UE to provide feedback in case actual CSI values are greater than predicted values; note that providing feedback (i.e., transmitting) is made based on the actual CSI values are not less than the predicted values (i.e., reporting condition)].
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 Xue with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Phrasad 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 Phrasad into the system of Xue would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensuring to reduce unnecessary signaling overhead and UE power consumption, 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)).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue et al (US Publication No. 2021/0376895 A1) in view of Rose et al (US Publication No. 2022/0123807 A1)1.
Regarding claim 7, Xue discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Xue further discloses, determining, by the wireless device, whether to transmit the information about the difference [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0081, the UE is configured to report the predicted calculates a difference between the predicted CSI generated at 914 and the measured CSI generated by measuring reference signals 916; ¶0096, the gNB determines whether the differences reported by the UE indicate that the respective CSI predictions are qualified or nonqualified predictions (step 922)], based on (i) the difference between the predictive measurement result and the present measurement [see ¶0095-0096, based on the difference between the predicted CSI and the measured CSI], Xue does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Rose discloses, determining, by the wireless device, whether to transmit the information about the difference, based on (i) the difference between the predictive measurement result and the present measurement and (ii) a threshold value [¶0105, if the difference between the predicted state of channel and the measured state of channel is smaller than a given threshold, the apparatus is configured to transmit information on the difference to the network node].
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 Xue with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Rose 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 Rose into the system of Xue would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensuring to reduce unnecessary signaling overhead and UE power consumption, 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)).
Regarding claim 8, Xue discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Xue does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Rose discloses, wherein the information about the difference is transmitted based on the difference between the predictive measurement result and the present measurement result being equal to or larger than a threshold value [¶0105, if the difference between the predicted state of channel and the measured state of channel is smaller than a given threshold, the apparatus is configured to transmit information on the difference to the network node].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Rose in the system of Xue for similar rationales set forth above in claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, Xue discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Xue does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Rose discloses, wherein the information about the difference is not transmitted based on the difference between the predictive measurement result and the present measurement result being less than a threshold value [see claim 7, if the difference between the predicted state of channel and the measured state of channel is smaller than a given threshold, cease transmitting information on the difference to the network node].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Rose in the system of Xue for similar rationales set forth above in claim 7.
Claims 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue et al (US Publication No. 2021/0376895 A1) in view of Hajri et al (US Publication No. 2022/0386292 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Xue discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Xue does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Hajri discloses, configuring, by the wireless device, a prediction time window [¶0044, the UE may select one prediction window or modify a configured or indicated prediction window or a plurality of prediction windows], wherein the predictive measurement result is derived based on the prediction time window [¶0043, depending on the configuration, for a CSI quantity for which prediction is enabled/configured, the UE may be configured to feedback: i) Multiple instances of the same quantity predicted for multiple time unit offsets; further see ¶0041-0055, the predicted CSI quantities are described based on the predicted window].
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 Xue with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Hajri 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 Hajri into the system of Xue would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensuring the network to make timely use of the predicted channel conditions, 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)).
Regarding claim 11, Xue in view of Hajri discloses, the method of claim 10 as set forth above.
Xue does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Hajri discloses, transmitting, by the wireless device to the network, information on the prediction time window along with the information about the predictive measurement result [¶0044, the UE reports a prediction window indicator or a prediction window shift indicator in uplink control information].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Hajri in the system of Xue for similar rationales set forth above in claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, Xue discloses, the method of claim 12 as set forth above.
Xue does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Hajri discloses, transmitting, by the wireless device to the network, information on the machine
learning model [¶0043, the UE may be configured to feedback: . . . ii) The coefficients of a CSI prediction model (e.g. the coefficients of a neural network, the coefficients of a regression polynomial function) which enable the gNB to compute a value or values of the CSI quantity at a time instance].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Hajri in the system of Xue for similar rationales set forth above in claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pezeshki et al (US Publication No. 2022/0239359 A1) [¶0079]
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 Rose was cited in an IDS by the applicant.
Prosecution Insights