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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
1. The application of Shi for the "BEAM PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS, AND DEVICE" filed 09/23/2024 has been examined. This application is a Continuation of PCT/CN2023/083048, filed 03/22/2023 and claims foreign priority to 202210294652.5, filed 03/23/2022 in China. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
2. The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks TM, and other legal symbols @, where required, and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the'' and “said'' within each
claim). Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is
strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 10, 11, 16, 19, 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 16, 19, 20 recite the limitation “beam association information” throughout the claims. The term "beam association information” is vague, imprecise and are not defined by the claims, does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what constitutes such “beam association information” are or what is involved in determining the input information for an AI model in a beam-related function. Appropriate correction required.
Claims 1, 16, 19, 20 recite the feature “AI model”. However, the AI model is not sufficiently defined, as no training parameters or structures of the AI model were defined. It should also be noted that no additional technical effect can be observed by the mere use of a general AI model without a precise definition of the AI model. The claims attempt to define the subject-matter in terms of the result to be achieved, which merely amounts to a statement of the underlying problem, without providing the technical features necessary for achieving this result. The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the number of pieces of the fourth beam association information" on line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the number of pieces of the fifth beam association information" on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the number of pieces of input information" on line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the transmitting" on line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 calls for a non-transitory computer program with an intended use of characterizing features of claim 16 which is a method claim. Claim drafted in this form normally encounters numerous problems and does not clearly claim the gist of the disclosed invention. For examination purpose, the examiner assumes claim 20 depends on claim 16. Appropriate correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103 and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.
7. Claims 1-6, 9-13, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ottersten et al. (US#2021/0400651) in view of Chen et al. (US#2019/0258927).
In so far as understood, regarding claims 1, 16, the references disclose a method and device for beam processing in wireless networks, according to the essential features of the claim. Ottersten et al. (US#2021/0400651) discloses a beam processing method, comprising: receiving, by a first device, first beam association information; wherein the first beam association information comprises second beam association information and/or third beam association information, and the first beam association information is used as input information for an artificial intelligence model, the artificial intelligence model being used for a beam-related function (see Figs 1-2: 145, 615; para [0065]: the acquired sensor information may have been input 130 into the machine learning model, the machine learning model may predict refined beam indices from the input information and the refined beam indices may be received 145 from the machine learning model. It’s noted that the Machine Learning ML model may be interpreted as at least one of an AI model, predictive analytics, a predictive analytics model, and the like); wherein the second beam association information is obtained after a second device performs transformation processing on fourth beam association information, the fourth beam association information being beam association information at a receiving end of a first reference signal (Fig. 1; para. [0072], [0094]: The method may comprise establishing 605 an initial coarse Beam Pair Link, BPL, with an apparatus. Thereafter, information from at least one sensor may be transmitted 610 to the apparatus. Refined beam indices predicted by a machine learning model may be received 615. The machine learning model may be trained to predict beam indices from sensor information. Thereafter, a refined BPL may be established 625 with the apparatus, based on the predicted the refined beam indices. It should be noted that the defined beam pair link corresponds to information at the receiving end as well as to information at the transmitting end); and the third beam association information is obtained after the second device performs transformation processing on fifth beam association information, the fifth beam association information being beam association information at a transmitting end of the first reference signal (Fig. 1; para. [0072], [0094]: The method may comprise establishing 605 an initial coarse Beam Pair Link, BPL, with an apparatus. Thereafter, information from at least one sensor may be transmitted 610 to the apparatus. Refined beam indices predicted by a machine learning model may be received 615. The machine learning model may be trained to predict beam indices from sensor information. Thereafter, a refined BPL may be established 625 with the apparatus, based on the predicted the refined beam indices. It should be noted that the defined beam pair link corresponds to information at the receiving end as well as to information at the transmitting end).
Althought, Ottersten reference does not disclose expressly wherein “performing transformation processing”. However, it is well-known in the field that applying transformation to the received response was used to generate the attestation to the response. In the same field of endeavor, Chen et al. (US#2019/0258927) teaches in Fig. 1 a general flow chart of a data exchange method 1000, in which the hash transformation may be performed on respective feature of the data sample after the data sample is acquired. The identifier of the sample and the feature of the sample may also be subjected to the hash transformation to prevent information from being obtained by the third party in plaintext (see also Figs. 2-3; para [0057]-[0059]: a transformation processing based on a random number of a hash transformation).
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed the invention to combine Chen’s performing transformation processing such as a hash into Ottersten’s devices and methods for performing beam management with receiving the motivation being to provide a method and device for beam processing in wireless networks.
In so far as understood, Regarding claims 2, 17, Ottersten in view of Chen teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Ottersten et al. (US#2021/0400651) further teaches wherein transmitting, by the first device, the fourth beam association information to the second device (Fig. 1; para [0094]: a refined BPL is established with the device, based on the predicted refined beam indices).
In so far as understood, Regarding claims 3-4, Ottersten in view of Chen teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Ottersten et al. (US#2021/0400651) further teaches wherein the fourth/fifth beam association information comprises at least one of the following: transmit beam association information; receive beam association information; or expected beam association information (Fig. 1, para [0094]: transmit and receive beam association information as well as the expected beam association information, as the beam indices for a beam pair link are predicted).
In so far as understood, Regarding claim 5, Ottersten in view of Chen teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Chen et al. (US#2019/0258927) further teaches wherein the transformation processing comprises at least one of the following: preset model transformation; transformation based on a random number; or hash transformation. (para [0081]-[0087] & [0099]-[0104]: in order to obtain the beam information, it is obvious to use a preset model transformation, a transformation based on a random number of a hash transformation).
In so far as understood, Regarding claim 6, Ottersten in view of Chen teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Chen et al. (US#2019/0258927) further teaches wherein the second beam association information and the third beam association information adopt same transformation processing (Fig. 1; para [0059]: the data samples from the acquirer are subjected to a same hash transformation as the identifiers of the data samples of the provider).
In so far as understood, Regarding claims 9, 18, Ottersten in view of Chen teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Ottersten et al. (US#2021/0400651) further teaches wherein a type of the fourth beam association information is different from a type of the fifth beam association information (Fig. 1; para [0094]: the alternative of using a different number of pieces for transmit and receive beams is obvious and well known).
In so far as understood, Regarding claim 10, Ottersten in view of Chen teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Ottersten et al. (US#2021/0400651) further teaches wherein the number of pieces of the fourth beam association information and the number of pieces of the fifth beam association information are greater than or equal to the number of pieces of input information of the artificial intelligence model (Fig. 1, para [0094]: the alternative of using a different number of pieces for transmit and receive beams is obvious and well known).
In so far as understood, Regarding claim 11, Ottersten in view of Chen teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Ottersten et al. (US#2021/0400651) further teaches wherein transmitting, by the first device, capability information comprising the fourth beam association information (Fig. 7; para [0099]: exchange of capability information).
In so far as understood, Regarding claim 12, Ottersten in view of Chen teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Chen et al. (US#2019/0258927) further teaches wherein the fourth beam association information and the fifth beam association information are represented by quantized encoded information; wherein the quantized encoded information is obtained based on a quantization interval (para [0040]: It is an obvious and well known feature to use quantized encoded information, wherein the output information of the AI model is quantized or encoded and then reported to the network device, or the output information of the AI model is quantized or encoded before being output).
In so far as understood, Regarding claim 13, Ottersten in view of Chen teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Ottersten et al. (US#2021/0400651) further teaches wherein in a case that the fourth beam association information and the fifth beam association information are not associated with a synchronization signal block (SSB), quasi co-location information of SSBs with a same identifier and a same frequency domain position remains unchanged (It is further obvious that the beam association information is not associated with a SSB QCL information).
In so far as understood, Regarding claim 19, it is apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 1 examined above. Therefore, claim 19 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed in paragraph above with respect to claim 1.
In so far as understood, Regarding claim 20, this claim differs from claims Ottersten et al. (US#2021/0400651) in view of Chen et al. (US#2019/0258927) in that the claims recited a computer program product for performing the same basis of steps and apparatus of the prior arts as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 examined above. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a computer program product in Ottersten in view of Chen for performing the steps and apparatus as recited in the claim with the motivation being to provide the efficient enhancement for beam processing in wireless networks, and easy to maintenance, upgrade.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 7, 8, 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome 112th paragraph as set forth above, and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
9. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein in a case that transformation processing needs to be performed on the fourth/fifth beam association information and the fourth/fifth beam association information comprises multiple pieces of beam association information, at least one piece of beam association information among the multiple pieces of beam association information is an object of the transformation processing; wherein the fourth beam association information and the fifth beam association information are determined based on configuration information corresponding to the first reference signal; or the fourth beam association information and the fifth beam association information are determined based on configuration information of a second reference signal quasi co-located with the first reference signal, as specifically recited in the claims.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Pezeshki et al. (US#11,595,102) reporting quantized UE orientation beam selection.
The Zhang et al. (US#2025/0386225) shows machine learning assisted beam selection.
The Schreck et al. (US#12,562,803) methods & devices for beam management operation
The Echigo et al. (US#2025/0081013) shows terminal radio communication method, BS.
The Hindy et al. (US#12,231,938) shows configuring & AI based framework.
The Ibrahim et al. (US#2026/0040314) vector quantization method for UE driven multi-vendor sequential training.
The Wang et al. (US#2020/0293828) shows techniques to train a neural network using transformations.
11. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
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, Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
13. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
09/09/2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights