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) submitted on 10/23/2024 and 3/17/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 6-8, 10, 16-18, and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6: lines 4-5 includes “wherein the multiple functionalities satisfy a boundary condition defined by a CSI prediction window parameter” which is unclear as to whether each functionality satisfies a corresponding boundary condition, or whether all of the multiple functionalities satisfy a single boundary condition, or something else is intended. Examination continued on the assumption each functionality satisfies a corresponding boundary condition.
Regarding claim 7: the claim, dependent upon claim 6, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6. Further, lines 3-4 includes “wherein the multiple CSI prediction functionalities that satisfy the boundary condition are counted as a single functionality” which is unclear as what precisely the metes and bounds are concerning “counted as a single functionality”, in particular, claim language describes “multiple CSI prediction functionalities” which is contrary to “single functionality”. Thus, it is unclear whether the intent describes some type of equivalency, some type of grouping, related to some type of counting or value, or something else. Examination continued on the assumption some type of equivalency is intended.
Regarding claim 8: lines 3-5 includes “a CSI report configuration”, “the CSI report configuration”, and “the CSI report configuration”, however, “CSI report configuration” has been introduced in parent independent claim 1 and thus, “CSI report configuration” of claim 8 is ambiguous. Examination continued on the assumption the same or another “CSI report configuration” are possible.
Regarding claim 10: lines 2-3 includes “generating the predicted CSI using a maximum number of CSI processing units reported by the UE supporting simultaneous CSI calculation and a number of occupied CSI processing units” which is unclear as to how both a maximum number of processing units are used and a number of occupied processing units are used. Examination continued on the assumption some type of clerical error / omission was introduced and should be similar to one of the maximum number processing units, and the number of occupied processing units. Further, line 4 include “a CSI report configuration” however, “CSI report configuration” has been introduced in parent independent claim 1 and thus, “CSI report configuration” of claim 10 is ambiguous. Examination continued on the assumption the same or another “CSI report configuration” are possible.
Regarding claim 16: the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 17: the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 18: the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8.
Regarding claim 20: the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 1-2, 9, 11-12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Katla et al. (US 2025/0253998 A1) hereinafter Katla.
Regarding claim 1, Katla teaches a method performed by a user equipment (UE) (wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) performing channel state information (CSI) reporting; para. 81-86), comprising: receiving, by the UE, a channel state information (CSI)-reference signal (RS) from a base station (WTRU receives CSI-reference signal (CSI-RS) from network; para. [190, 204] and Figs. [5, 7] steps [503, 703], network node includes base station (BS); para. 244); storing, by the UE, a series of CSI measurements corresponding to the received CSI-RS (WTRU configured for sets [series] of CSI-RS to build historical buffer [storing]; para. 181, WTRU performs measurements on CSI-RS; para. 85, WTRU collects CSI historical data [storing CSI measurements] to enable prediction; para. [184, 190-191] and Figs. [5, 7] steps [703-704]); receiving, by the UE, a CSI report configuration including an indication that artificial intelligence machine learning (AIML) CSI prediction is applied (WTRU receives request for CSI prediction; para. [86-89, 187] and Fig. 5 step 501, artificial intelligence machine learning (AI/ML) used for CSI prediction; para. [161, 166-185, 190-191] and Fig. 5 step 504); in response to receiving the indication that AIML CSI prediction is applied, generating, by the UE, a predicted CSI based on the stored CSI measurements using a trained artificial intelligence (AI) machine learning (ML) model (after [in response] WTRU receives request for CSI prediction; para. [86-89, 187] and Fig. 5 step 501, WTRU collects CSI historical data [storing CSI measurements] to enable prediction; para. [184, 190-191] and Figs. [5, 7] steps [703-704], AI/ML used for [generating] CSI prediction; para. [161, 166-185, 191] and Fig. 5 step 504, WTRU sends [generated] predicted CSI to network; para. [99, 192, 204-205] and Figs. [5, 7] steps [506, 709]); and transmitting, by the UE, the predicted CSI to the base station (WTRU sends predicted CSI to network; para. [99, 192, 204-205] and Figs. [5, 7] steps [506, 709]).
Regarding claim 2, Katla teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Katla further teaches wherein generating the predicted CSI using the AIML model is based on the received CSI report configuration (WTRU receives request for CSI prediction; para. [86-89, 187] and Fig. 5 step 501, predicted CSI based on accumulated CSI; para. [166, 191, 204] and Figs. [5, 7] steps [504, 701, 707-708]).
Regarding claim 9, Katla teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Katla further teaches performing data collection based on assistance information including an associated identification (ID) of one or more CSI resource sets associated with a network implementation to match a data distribution during training with a data distribution during inference (WTRU fills historical buffer [data collection during training] and reports CSI [during interference] using CSI-RS based on medium access control - control element (MAC-CE) [associated ID] received from BS; para. [108, 206-208, 359]), wherein each of the one or more CSI resource sets correspond to a unique associated ID (CSI measurement setting include CSI-RS resource indicator [unique to identify specific RS]; para. [119, 122, 321]).
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1, including a user equipment (UE) (wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) performing channel state information (CSI) reporting; para. 81-86), comprising: a memory device (memory para. 41 and Fig. 1B); and a processor configured to execute instructions stored on the memory device, wherein the instructions cause the processor (processor coupled to memory executing program/software; para. [41, 49, 391] and Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 9.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katla in view of Sun et al. (US 2026/0025185 A1) hereinafter Sun.
Regarding claim 3, Katla teaches the limitation of previous claim 2.
Katla further teaches the observation window defining a number of slots, starting from a first slot ending at a last slot, used by the UE to identify the series of CSI measurements (WTRU receives number of CSI-RS samples for building historical CSI; para. 89, start time and duration of set of CSI-RS configured by RRC; para. 310, CSI values sampled at time slot; para. 167, WTRU performs measurements on CSI-RS; para. 85).
While Katla discloses configuring WTRU for CSI-RS, prediction CSI, window/slots regarding CSI-RS and prediction CSI, Katla does not explicitly disclose wherein the CSI report configuration further includes an indication of an observation window for the AIML model.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sun teaches wherein the CSI report configuration further includes an indication of an observation window for the AIML model (CSI slots used for data collection based on first information configuration from the network side; para. [234, 240], first information based on RRC from network; para. [241, 244], CSI reporting information and first information sent simultaneously; para. 201-202).
Therefore, 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 technique of Sun to the system of Katla, where Katla’s reducing CSI related overhead (para. 159-161) along with Sun’s autonomous CSI data collection (para. 101) improves spectrum efficiency by reducing signaling overhead and autonomous data collection for CSI collection.
Regarding claim 4, Katla teaches the limitation of previous claim 2.
Katla further teaches the prediction window defining a number of slots, starting from a first slot ending at a last slot, used by the UE to identify one or more predicted CSI measurements (predicted CSI includes predicted CSI for L look ahead slots; para. 193).
While Katla discloses configuring the WTRU with look-ahead window size, Katla does not explicitly disclose wherein the CSI report configuration further includes an indication of a prediction window for the AIML model.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sun teaches wherein the CSI report configuration further includes an indication of a prediction window for the AIML model (CSI-RS configuration includes time domain configuration for predicted CSI; para. 227, first information includes CSI-RS configuration; para. 120, CSI reporting information and first information sent simultaneously; para. 201-202).
Therefore, 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 technique of Sun to the system of Katla, where Katla’s reducing CSI related overhead (para. 159-161) along with Sun’s autonomous CSI data collection (para. 101) improves spectrum efficiency by reducing signaling overhead and autonomous data collection for CSI collection.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Claim(s) 5-6, 8, 15-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katla in view of Zheng (US 2025/0338160 A1) hereinafter Zheng.
Regarding claim 5, Katla teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Katla does not explicitly disclose transmitting, by the UE, a capability report indicating a maximum number of AIML-based CSI prediction functionalities that can be activated by the base station.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zheng teaches transmitting, by the UE, a capability report indicating a maximum number of AIML-based CSI prediction functionalities that can be activated by the base station (UE reports maintained [max] model information [functionalities]; para. 240, switching models; para. 238).
Therefore, 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 technique of Zheng to the system of Katla, where Katla’s reducing CSI related overhead (para. 159-161) along with Zheng’s dynamically selecting appropriate model for CSI feedback (para. [129, 265]) improves the system by improving CSI feedback performance in different environments and improving spectrum efficiency.
Regarding claim 6, Katla teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Katla does not explicitly disclose assigning, by the UE, a single AIML prediction model to multiple CSI prediction functionalities, wherein the multiple functionalities satisfy a boundary condition defined by a CSI prediction window parameter.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zheng teaches assigning, by the UE, a single AIML prediction model to multiple CSI prediction functionalities (UE determines whether current model [single] is still adaptable to current scenario [multiple functionalities]; para. 216, UE selects CSI model; para. 261), wherein the multiple functionalities satisfy a boundary condition defined by a CSI prediction window parameter (CSI model determined based on satisfying threshold value including monitoring periods [window parameter]; para. 216, monitoring includes channel quality, CSI model performance [prediction]; para. [108-112, 177-180, 192-195]).
Therefore, 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 technique of Zheng to the system of Katla, where Katla’s reducing CSI related overhead (para. 159-161) along with Zheng’s dynamically selecting appropriate model for CSI feedback (para. [129, 265]) improves the system by improving CSI feedback performance in different environments and improving spectrum efficiency.
Regarding claim 8, Katla teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Katla further teaches transmitting, by the UE, a request to initiate a data collection session for CSI measurement (WTRU transmits window size to network node, network node determines if window size is sufficient [where determination based on information indicates requests]; para. 187-190, WTRU requests first set of RSs [to begin CSI measurements]; para. [307-308, 314]); in response to the request, receiving, from the base station, a CSI report configuration dedicated for data collection (when network node determines window size is sufficient [response to request], network node configures WTRU for CSI prediction and reports CSI; para. 190), wherein the request includes parameters indicating an observation window (WTRU transmits number of samples for building historical CSI; para. [89, 187, 204] , examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference) or a prediction window to be used for model training (WTRU transmits window size to network node, network node determines if window size is sufficient [where determination based on information indicates requests]; para. [90, 187-190, 204]).
While Katla discloses configuring for CSI report and configuring via RRC, Katla does not explicitly disclose that is indicated by an explicit information element in the CSI report configuration or a report quantity of the CSI report configuration that is set to none.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zheng teaches that is indicated by an explicit information element in the CSI report configuration (CSI prediction including CSI data collection based on radio resource control (RRC) message [information element]; para. 238-244, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference) or a report quantity of the CSI report configuration that is set to none.
Therefore, 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 technique of Zheng to the system of Katla, where Katla’s reducing CSI related overhead (para. 159-161) along with Zheng’s dynamically selecting appropriate model for CSI feedback (para. [129, 265]) improves the system by improving CSI feedback performance in different environments and improving spectrum efficiency.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katla in view of Zheng, and further in view of Rykov et al. (US 2026/0230404 A1) hereinafter Rykov.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Katla and Zhang teaches the limitation of previous claim 6.
Katla does not explicitly disclose wherein the boundary condition is determined based on an observation window parameter or a prediction window parameter, and wherein the multiple CSI prediction functionalities that satisfy the boundary condition are counted as a single functionality.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zheng teaches wherein the boundary condition is determined based on an observation window parameter (CSI model determined based on satisfying threshold value including monitoring periods; para. 216, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference) or a prediction window parameter (monitoring includes channel quality, CSI model performance [prediction]; para. [108-112, 177-180, 192-195]).
Therefore, 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 technique of Zheng to the system of Katla, where Katla’s reducing CSI related overhead (para. 159-161) along with Zheng’s dynamically selecting appropriate model for CSI feedback (para. [129, 265]) improves the system by improving CSI feedback performance in different environments and improving spectrum efficiency.
Zhen does not explicitly disclose wherein the multiple CSI prediction functionalities that satisfy the boundary condition are counted as a single functionality.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rykov teaches wherein the multiple CSI prediction functionalities that satisfy the boundary condition are counted as a single functionality (bundle or set of functionalities are combined; para. 84).
Therefore, 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 technique of Rykov to the modified system of Katla and Zhen, where Katla and Zhen’s modified system along with Rykov’s improvements to the use of AI/ML models or AI functionalities (para. 25-27) improves UE operation by taking countermeasures to avoid degradation.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katla in view of Park et al. (US 2024/0340679 A1) hereinafter Park.
Regarding claim 10, Katla teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Katla further teaches wherein generating the predicted CSI further comprises generating the predicted CSI using a maximum number of CSI processing units supporting simultaneous CSI calculation (WTRU with N CPU estimates N CSI feedbacks in parallel, N CPUs a WTRU capability; para. 138) and [or] a number of occupied CSI processing units in response to a CSI report configuration that indicates use of the AIML model (Ks CPU occupied for Ks CSI-RS resource for CSI reporting based on type of report [CSI report configuration]; para. 142-149).
While Katla discloses WTRU capability includes CPUs and WTRU report capability, Katla does not explicitly disclose reported by the UE.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Park teaches reported by the UE (UE reports AI/ML related UE capabilities to the gNB; para. 65).
Therefore, 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 technique of Park to the system of Katla, where Katla’s reducing CSI related overhead (para. 159-161) along with Park’s reporting of only valid AI/ML-related capabilities (para. [58, 65]) improves signaling efficiency by reducing overhead of UE capability reporting for CSI feedback.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xue et al. (US 2021/0376895 A1) discloses Qualifying machine learning-based CSI prediction.
Mahendra et al. (US 2025/0105898 A1) discloses a mechanism for testing model based prediction accuracy
Tian et al. (US 2023/0085850 A1) discloses channel state information processing method, electronic device, and storage medium.
Guo (US 2024/0364405 A1) discloses methods and apparatus of machine learning based channel state information (CSI) measurement and reporting.
Chen et al. (US 2026/0246520 A1) discloses signal processing method and apparatus, terminal device, and network device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE L PEREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 am - 3 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/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/JOSE L PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
