DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The instant First Office Action on the merits is in response to claims filed on 9/24/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 11 are the base independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted was filed before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(b). Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over SHI et al (WO 2024/207300) in view of TOOHER et al (WO 2024/233730), further in view of Guey et al (US 2008/0031370) or HAJRI et al (US 2022/0386292).
Regarding claim 1, SHI discloses a base station (BS) comprising:
a transceiver; and a processor operatively coupled to the transceiver, the processor (see fig. 10) configured to:
estimate a mobility level of a user equipment (UE) (fig. 8 & par [138], also [068]; e.g. evaluate the mobility state of the UE);
determine whether the estimated mobility level of the UE is in low mobility (par [068], par [120]; determining whether the UE is in low mobility or not); and
generate, from a channel response prediction model, a future channel response prediction based on the estimated mobility level of the UE and the estimated mobility of the UE is not in low mobility (par [130]; If the terminal device 110 is not in the low mobility state and the stationary state, the terminal device 110 may activate the AI model; also see [036] or [047], historical beam information may be used to predict future beam information in future time instances through an AI model. In some cases of channel state information (CSI) prediction, historical CSI information may be used to predict future CSI information in future time instances through an AI model).
The reference does not disclose determining the UE exceeds a speed threshold (emphasis added), however it is obvious, because TOOHER discloses:
In par [0111], if datasets are substantially different, then suitability evaluation may determine that the model is not suitable. The WTRU may determine a divergence value…average speed…compare the divergence value between two datasets against a threshold (e.g., if the divergence value is greater than the threshold). Thus, it is understood, speed is one of the parameters.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of communication protocol configured for the electronic system of TOOHER with the electronic system of SHI. One is motivated as such to evaluate an AI model’s suitability (TOOHER, par [0105]).
Regarding claim 2, SHI discloses:
the transceiver is configured to receive, from the UE, a pilot or measurement report (par [0045], e.g. a beam report); and
to generate the future channel response prediction, the processor is further configured to, in response to a determination that the mobility level of the UE does not exceed the speed threshold (par [0077]; if the terminal device is in the low mobility state, the terminal device may deactivate the AI model):
preprocess, based on the pilot or measurement report, channel state information (CSI) (par [0051], it can be seen that using historical beam information to predict beam information in multiple future time instances may reduce beam measurement and report overhead); and
update a CSI buffer with the preprocessed CSI (par [0067]; the input parameter may comprise historical information for CSI),
wherein the future channel response prediction is generated by the channel response prediction model based on at least a portion of information stored within the CSI buffer (par [0067]; history signal measurements for a set of beams (denoted as Set B) in history or current time instances t-3, t-2, t-1 and t may be used; thus it is obvious when the AI model is not applied, then the channel response or output is generated based on the historical information).
Regarding claim 3, TOOHER discloses:
the processor is further configured to, in response to a determination that the mobility level of the UE exceeds the speed threshold, estimate a prediction factor (par [0096]; e.g. AI/ML model suitability evaluation); and
the future channel response prediction is generated by the channel response prediction model based on the prediction factor (par [0153]; e.g. the suitability evaluation may be done by monitoring (e.g., via measurements) the scenario and/or configuration to determine if it matches the previous training assumptions. The suitability evaluation may be done by comparing the output of the Al/ML model encoder of a known input, to a received base station desired output).
Regarding claim 4, TOOHER discloses:
wherein the prediction factor is estimated based on a speed of the UE and a variance of the speed of the UE (par [0111]; e.g. a metric that determines how different two datasets are, hence obviously a variance value).
Regarding claim 5, the combination does not disclose:
wherein a pilot density is temporarily increased, based on the estimated prediction factor.
However, it is obvious in view of Guey, because in Guey:
In Par 21, e.g. the receiver 12 is configured to use the increased pilot density to improve its channel estimation operations, at least within the edge regions of the OFDM signal.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of communication protocol configured for the electronic system of Guey with the electronic system of TOOHER and SHI. One is motivated as such to temporarily improve the channel estimation (Guey, par 21).
Regarding claim 9, the combination does not disclose:
the processor is further configured to, in response to a determination that the mobility level of the UE exceeds the speed threshold, determine whether high-speed data is limited in a used data set or an available data set; and
the future channel response prediction is generated based on whether the high-speed data is limited in the used data set or the available data set.
However, HAJRI discloses:
In Par 31; e.g. the measurement intervals that a UE may consider can be either restricted or unrestricted; ii) In case of restricted measurements, these are based on the latest measured sample, also Par 59, e.g. the radio channel and interference conditions seen by a UE may be impacted considerably in case of a scheduling restriction or a sudden change in UE speed (UE goes from pedestrian to car speed).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of communication protocol configured for the electronic system of HAJRI with the electronic system of TOOHER and SHI. One is motivated as such to apply measurement window restriction (HAJRI, par 60).
Regarding claims 11-15 and 19, SHI in view of TOOHER, further in view of Guey or HAJRI discloses similar processes of a base station in claims 1-5 and 9 for a UE, hence the rejection is based on the mapping above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 10, 16-18 and 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAOTANG WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4023. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-18:00 ET (M, W, TH & alternate F).
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, HADI ARMOUCHE can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/YAOTANG WANG/SCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights