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 .
Introduction
This is a response to the applicant’s filing filed on 12/16/2024. In virtue of this filing, claims 1-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-20 and 25-27 are currently presented in the instant application. Claims 8, 11, 15 and 21-24 are canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/16/2024 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Drawings
The drawing submitted on 12/16/2024 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Specification
The specification submitted on 12/16/2024 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of copending Application No.: 19/102,971 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 in the current application have the same scope of claimed inventions with obvious wording variations.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims recite an embodiment of the applicants' invention directed towards " A computer readable storage medium, storing .....” as recites in claim 27. It is noted, however, the specification (page 31, PAR [0201]) provides open-ended examples of storage medium and is silent with respect to “A non- transitory storage medium" Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, "Storage medium" considered as a whole would be directed towards non-statutory mediums such as signals/carrier waves. The specification fails to define A storage medium excludes a signals/carrier waves, such as transitory signal as per the USPTO notice signed by David Kapposon 1/26/2010: "The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319(Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a storage medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C.j101, Aug. 24,2009; p. 2."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 12, 25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gulati et al. (US Patent No.: 12,245,129, hereinafter, “Gulati”).
Regarding claims 1 and 25, Gulati teaches a terminal and method, comprising: a processor; a transceiver connected with the processor; wherein the processor is configured to load and execute executable instructions to perform operations comprising:
monitoring a performance index of a model (see figures 3, 10A-10B, and 11, UE 350, UE 1102, col.19, ln.25-34, col.21, ln.1-20).
Regarding claim 2, Gulati further teaches a prediction accuracy (the applicant used the alternative language OR. Examiner select A to exam, col.20, ln.54-63).
Regarding claim 3, Gulati further teaches based on N1 prediction results output by the model, determining the performance index, wherein N1 is a positive integer (see col.20, ln.54-63, index 1, index 2).
Regarding claim 12, Gulati further teaches performing beam prediction based on the model, col.21, ln.1-20).
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 is rejected the same reason of claim 25 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 4-6, 16-17, 19-20 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gulati et al. (US Patent No.: 12,245,129, hereinafter, “Gulati”).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Gulati further teaches a model monitoring method, performed by an access network device and comprising:
receiving a performance indication reported by a terminal, wherein the performance indication represents that the terminal monitors a performance index of a model is greater than a threshold of the performance index (see figures 3, 10A-10B, and 11, UE 1102, col.19, ln.25-34, col.21, ln.1-20).
It should be noticed that Gulati silent wherein the performance indication represents that the terminal monitors a performance index of a model is lower than a threshold of the performance index. However, it is obvious that if the transmitted inference result from the UE is below the prespecified threshold, the network node will not generate a report.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of the UE is below the prespecified threshold, the network node will not generate a report in order to save time to process.
Regarding claim 17, Gulati further teaches a prediction accuracy (the applicant used the alternative language OR. Examiner select A to exam, col.20, ln.54-63).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Gulati further teaches receiving the performance indication reported by the terminal comprises: receiving the performance indication reported by the terminal over a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) or Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) (see col.10, ln.30-45).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Gulati further teaches a performance index value of the model (see col.20, ln.45-54, index 1, index 2).
Regarding claim 26, Gulati further teaches electronic device, comprising: a processor; and a transceiver connected with the processor; wherein the execute executable instructions when executed by the processor cause the electronic device to act as the access network device and to perform the model monitoring method (see figures 3, 10A-10B, and 11, UE 350, UE 1102, col.19, ln.25-34, col.21, ln.1-20).
Claim(s) 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gulati et al. (US Patent No.: 12,245,129, hereinafter, “Gulati”) in view of Choi et al. (US Patent No.: 12,666,369, hereinafter, “Choi”).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Gulati disclosed invention, but fails to teach receiving a traditional mode indication from the access network device, wherein the traditional mode indication indicates the terminal to use a traditional mode; based on the traditional mode indication, switching to the traditional mode. However, Choi teaches receiving a traditional mode indication from the access network device, wherein the traditional mode indication indicates the terminal to use a traditional mode; based on the traditional mode indication, switching to the traditional mode (see abstract, mobile switching from first mode to second mode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Choi into view of Gulati in order to provide faster transient response and improve system stability.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gulati et al. (US Patent No.: 12,245,129, hereinafter, “Gulati”) in view of Li et al. (US Pub. No.: 2025/0167854, hereinafter, “Li”).
Regarding claims 13, Gulati disclosed invention, but fails to teach performing the beam prediction based on the model comprises: inputting L1-RSRPs and/or L1-SINRs of reference signals in a first set at a first time into the model to obtain absolute values wherein the first time and the second time are in a same period or the first time is a historical time. However, Li teaches performing the beam prediction based on the model comprises: inputting L1-RSRPs and/or L1-SINRs of reference signals in a first set at a first time into the model to obtain absolute values; wherein the first time and the second time are in a same period or the first time is a historical time (see figure 7, [0112, 0144]). It appear to examiner that the first time and the second time are in a same period or the first time is a historical time would depend more upon the choice of the manufacturer and the choice of engineering, than on any inventive concept).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Li into view of Gulati in order to provide faster transient response and improve system stability.
Regarding claims 14, Li further teaches performing the beam prediction based on the model comprises: inputting L1-RSRPs and/or L1-SINRs of reference signals in a third set at a first time into the model to obtain absolute values (see figure 7, [0112, 0144]). It appear to examiner that the first time and the second time are in a same period or the first time is a historical time would depend more upon the choice of the manufacturer and the choice of engineering, than on any inventive concept).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art made of record fails to clearly teach or fairly suggest the feature of determining the threshold of the performance index of the model; wherein determining the threshold of the performance index of the model comprises: based on indication information of the access network device, determining the threshold of the performance index of the model: or, based on a default value, determining the threshold of the performance index of the model.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan A. Pham whose telephone number is (571) 272-8097, the fax number is (571) 273-8097 and the email is tuan.pham01@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached on (571) 272-7855. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/TUAN PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights