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 .
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.
Claims 1, 13-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WU et al PG PUB 2024/0422727.
Re Claims 1, 16 and 20, WU et al teaches in figure 1, a Terminal (a second communication device) receiving a beam configuration indicating a quantity of beams (at least one beam group) comprising at least one beam [0100 0102 0115 0118] from a first access network device (a first communication device comprising a processor and memory with instructions in a CRM); based on the beam configuration, in figure 7, S801, the first access network device (the first communication device) receiving/obtaining a first location information (a first related information) corresponding to the configured quantity of beams (the at least one beam group) into a machine learning ML model (a target AI model) [0124] to obtain an output (at least one piece of second beam related information) by predication, wherein the output corresponds to configured quantity of beams (the beam group);
in S804, the first access network device performing verification of the machine learning (ML) model based on inputting the first location information to the ML model to obtain the output (at least one piece of second beam related information), in S805 [0125 0126], the first access network access transmitting first indication information indicating a verification result to Terminal device (the second communication device) wherein the verification result is indicative of the performance verification on the ML model (the target AI model).
Re Claims 13, 14, WU et al teaches the Feedback result (first beam related information) comprises a beam ID [0118] associated with a beam group used during the use of the ML model.
Re Claim 15, WU et al teaches the Terminal device (the second communication device) receiving the verification result indicative of the performance verification on the ML model (the target AI model) [0126].
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.
Claims 2-4, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU et al PG PUB 2024/0422727 in view of KARJALAINEN et al PG PUB 2021/0281297.
Re Claims 2, 17, WU et al teaches the first access network access performing performance verification, respectively matching by the first access network device, in 804, verify the first location information based on the feedback result, based on the verification result, determining whether the ML model is reliable or not (valid or invalid).
WU et al fails to explicitly teach “third beam relating information is label beam related information corresponding to the least one beam group”.
However, KARJALAINEN et al teaches the UE receiving configuration information triggering a feedback report indicating P different beam groups with N-best beam indices in conjunction with N-best RSRP level in each group [0029]. By combining the teachings, the ML model WU et al can be modified to include beam indices (the third beam related information is label beam related information) corresponding to the at least one beam group in training the ML model in determining the most reliability of the ML model. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have determined the reliability of the ML model based on the beam indices associated with the at least one beam group. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claims 3, 18, WU et al in view of KARJALAINEN et al, the feedback result from the terminal device can be modified to include beam indices corresponding to the beam group and respective N-best RSRP/RSRQ levels to the location information of the beam wherein the ML model performs matching of the respective location (at least part of the each piece of the second beam related information) with the beam index, beam group and RSRP/RSRQ (the third beam related information).
Re Claims 4, 19, WU et al in view of KARJALAINEN et al, the first access network device can select best RSRP/RSRP level (a maximum value from multiple pieces of beam quality information…the second bean related information) associated with the beam indices associated with the beam group.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-12 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Re Claim 5, prior art fails to teach determining that the target AL model is valid in case that the matching results are within a first reference value interval as claimed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3130. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM ET.
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, KASSIM KHALAD can be reached at 5712703770. 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.
/ANDREW LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights