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 .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
4. The drawings were received on 01/07/2025. These drawings are considered by examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-3, 7-13, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pezeshki et al (US 12,615,616), hereinafter “Pezeshki“, in view of Eagleman et al (US 2021/0208684), hereinafter “Eagleman“.
Regarding claim 1, Pezeshki teaches a user equipment (UE) (fig. 4) comprising:
a transceiver configured to receive a wireless signal (fig. 4, a transceiver 487);
a communication processor configured to generate a value of at least one indicator based on the wireless signal (fig. 4, col. 11, line 52 to col. 12, line 67 teach the channel quality indicators (CQIs); and
a neural processor configured to receive the value of the at least one indicator from the communication processor (fig. 4, col. 11, line 52 to col. 12, line 67 teach a processor configured to receive the RSRP, RSSI, RSRQ, RSSI, CQI), and generate a movement determination value by determining whether the UE is moving based on the value of the at least one indicator by using a neural network model (col. 18, line 1 to col. 19, line 67),
Pezeshki does not explicitly teach wherein the communication processor is further configured to receive the movement determination value from the neural processor and set an operation mode of the UE based on the movement determination value.
Eagleman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the communication processor is further configured to receive the movement determination value from the neural processor and set an operation mode of the UE based on the movement determination value (pars [0040] [0156]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Pezeshki to Eagleman, in order to provide suitable parameters that to determine a set of aggregated parameters such as average frequency, median frequency, minimum frequency, maximum frequency, average energy, median energy, minimum energy, maximum energy to control the power based on the operation mode of the device (as suggested by Eagleman in paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Pezeshki and Eagleman teach the UE of claim 1, Pezeshki further teaches wherein the at least one indicator comprises at least one of: a global cell identifier (ID), a physical cell ID, a frequency band, a bandwidth, received signal received power (RSRP) (col. 12, lines 39-55), reference signal received quality (RSRQ), a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), a signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR), a number of resource blocks, a channel quality indicator (CQI), a rank indicator (RI), a precoding matrix indicator (PMI), a modulation and coding scheme (MCS), a modulation order, a block error rate (BLER), transmission power, a Doppler frequency, or a delay spread.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the combination of Pezeshki and Eagleman teach the UE of claims 1, 11, Pezeshki does not clearly teach comprising an application processor configured to generate at least one sensing value using at least one sensor, wherein the neural processor is further configured to: receive the at least one sensing value from the application processor, and generate the movement determination value based on the value of the at least one indicator and the at least one sensing value, by using the neural network model.
Eagleman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches comprising an application processor configured to generate at least one sensing value using at least one sensor (pars [0016] [0026], and [0037]), wherein the neural processor is further configured to: receive the at least one sensing value from the application processor (pars [0016] [0026], [0037), and generate the movement determination value based on the value of the at least one indicator and the at least one sensing value (pars [0026] [0156]), by using the neural network model (pars [0026] [0037], and [0156]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Pezeshki to Eagleman, in order to provide suitable parameters that to determine a set of aggregated parameters such as average frequency, median frequency, minimum frequency, maximum frequency, average energy, median energy, minimum energy, maximum energy to control the power based on the operation mode of the device (as suggested by Eagleman in paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Pezeshki and Eagleman teach the UE of claim 3, Pezeshki does not clearly teach wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one of: a gyro sensor, an acceleration sensor, a linear acceleration sensor, or a geomagnetic sensor.
Eagleman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one of: a gyro sensor (par [0037]), an acceleration sensor, a linear acceleration sensor, or a geomagnetic sensor (pars [0016] [0026], and [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of
Pezeshki to Eagleman, in order to provide suitable parameters that to determine a set of aggregated parameters such as average frequency, median frequency, minimum frequency, maximum frequency, average energy, median energy, minimum energy, maximum energy to control the power based on the operation mode of the device (as suggested by Eagleman in paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the combination of Pezeshki and Eagleman teach the UE of claims 1, 11, Pezeshki does not clearly teach wherein the communication processor is further configured to: when the movement determination value indicates that the UE is moving, set the operation mode of the UE to a first operation mode, and when the movement determination value indicates that the UE does not move, set the operation mode of the UE to a second operation mode.
Eagleman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the communication processor is further configured to: when the movement determination value indicates that the UE is moving (par [0156]), set the operation mode of the UE to a first operation mode, and when the movement determination value indicates that the UE does not move, set the operation mode of the UE to a second operation mode (pars [0040] [0156]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Pezeshki to Eagleman, in order to provide suitable parameters that to determine a set of aggregated parameters such as average frequency, median frequency, minimum frequency, maximum frequency, average energy, median energy, minimum energy, maximum energy to control the power based on the operation mode of the device (as suggested by Eagleman in paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the combination of Pezeshki and Eagleman teach the UE of claims 8, 11, Pezeshki does not clearly teach wherein the communication processor is further configured to: periodically perform a cell search operation, when the operation mode of the UE is the first operation mode, and maintain a preset cell, when the operation mode of the UE is the second operation mode.
Eagleman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the communication processor is further configured to: periodically perform a cell search operation, when the operation mode of the UE is the first operation mode (pars [0040] [0156]), and maintain a preset cell, when the operation mode of the UE is the second operation mode (pars [0040] [0156]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Pezeshki to Eagleman, in order to provide suitable parameters that to determine a set of aggregated parameters such as average frequency, median frequency, minimum frequency, maximum frequency, average energy, median energy, minimum energy, maximum energy to control the power based on the operation mode of the device (as suggested by Eagleman in paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, the combination of Pezeshki and Eagleman teach the UE of claims 8, 11, Pezeshki does not clearly teach wherein the communication processor is further configured to: update a beam by periodically performing a beam sweeping operation, when the operation mode of the UE is the first operation mode, and maintain a preset beam, when the operation mode of the UE is the second operation mode.
Eagleman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the communication processor is further configured to: update a beam by periodically performing a beam sweeping operation, when the operation mode of the UE is the first operation mode, and maintain a preset beam, when the operation mode of the UE is the second operation mode (pars [0040] [0156]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Pezeshki to Eagleman, in order to provide suitable parameters that to determine a set of aggregated parameters such as average frequency, median frequency, minimum frequency, maximum frequency, average energy, median energy, minimum energy, maximum energy to control the power based on the operation mode of the device (as suggested by Eagleman in paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claim 11, Pezeshki teaches a user equipment (UE) comprising:
a transceiver configured to receive a wireless signal (fig. 4, a transceiver 487); and a communication processor configured to generate a value of at least one indicator based on the wireless signal (fig. 4, col. 11, line 52 to col. 12, line 67 teach the channel quality indicators (CQIs),
wherein the communication processor is further configured to (fig. 4, col. 11, line 52 to col. 12, line 67):
generate a movement determination value by determining whether the UE is moving based on the value of the at least one indicator, by using a neural network model (fig. 4, col. 11, line 52 to col. 12, line 67 teach a processor configured to receive the RSRP, RSSI, RSRQ, RSSI, CQI), and
Pezeshki does not explicitly teach set an operation mode of the UE based on the movement determination value.
Eagleman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches set an operation mode of the UE based on the movement determination value (pars [0040] [0156]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Pezeshki to Eagleman, in order to provide suitable parameters that to determine a set of aggregated parameters such as average frequency, median frequency, minimum frequency, maximum frequency, average energy, median energy, minimum energy, maximum energy to control the power based on the operation mode of the device (as suggested by Eagleman in paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Pezeshki and Eagleman teach the UE of claim 12, Pezeshki does not clearly teach comprising a buffer configured to receive and store the at least one sensing value from the application processor, wherein the communication processor is further configured to receive the at least one sensing value from the buffer.
Eagleman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a buffer configured to receive and store the at least one sensing value from the application processor, wherein the communication processor is further configured to receive the at least one sensing value from the buffer (par [0106])
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Pezeshki to Eagleman, in order to provide suitable parameters that to determine a set of aggregated parameters such as average frequency, median frequency, minimum frequency, maximum frequency, average energy, median energy, minimum energy, maximum energy to control the power based on the operation mode of the device (as suggested by Eagleman in paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claim 20, Pezeshki teaches a user equipment (UE) comprising:
a transceiver configured to receive a wireless signal (fig. 4, a transceiver 487);
a communication processor configured to generate a value of at least one indicator based on the wireless signal (fig. 4, col. 11, line 52 to col. 12, line 67 teach the channel quality indicators (CQIs);
an application processor configured to generate at least one sensing value using at least one sensor (fig. 4, col. 11, line 52 to col. 12, line 67 teach a processor configured to receive the RSRP, RSSI, RSRQ, RSSI, CQI); and
a neural processor configured to receive the value of the at least one indicator from the communication processor (fig. 4, col. 11, line 52 to col. 12, line 67), receive the at least one sensing value from the application processor (fig. 4, col. 11, line 52 to col. 12, line 67), and
Pezeshki does not clearly teach generate a movement determination value by determining whether the UE is moving based on the value of the at least one indicator and the at least one sensing value (pars [0040] [0156]).
Eagleman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches generate a movement determination value by determining whether the UE is moving based on the value of the at least one indicator and the at least one sensing value Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Pezeshki to Eagleman, in order to provide suitable parameters that to determine a set of aggregated parameters such as average frequency, median frequency, minimum frequency, maximum frequency, average energy, median energy, minimum energy, maximum energy to control the power based on the operation mode of the device (as suggested by Eagleman in paragraph [0086]).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 4-6, 14-16 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.
As to claims 4, 14, the prior art of record fails to disclose wherein the neural processor is further configured to generate a first determination value by determining whether the UE is moving, based on the value of the at least one indicator, by using a first neural network model, generate a second determination value by determining whether the UE is moving, based on the at least one sensing value, by using a second neural network model, and generate the movement determination value based on the first determination value and the second determination value, using a decision circuit as specified in the claims.
As to claims 5, 15, the prior art of record fails to disclose wherein the neural processor is further configured to: generate a first determination value by determining whether the UE is moving based on the value of the at least one indicator, by using a first neural network model, and generate the movement determination value by determining whether the UE is moving based on the first determination value and the at least one sensing value, by using a second neural network model as specified in the claims.
As to claims 6, 16, the prior art of record fails to disclose wherein the neural processor is further configured to: generate a second determination value by determining whether the UE is moving based on the at least one sensing value, by using a second neural network model, and generate the movement determination value by determining whether the UE is moving based on the second determination value and the value of the at least one indicator, by using a first neural network model as specified in the claims.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Alawieh et al (US 2025/0056488) teaches the user equipment configured to receive information from a network node of the wireless communication system comprising information on at least one of the following that AI/ML support for the area in which the user equipment is located is provided (pars [0070-0071]).
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T VU whose telephone number is (571)272-8131. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00AM to 6:00PM.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached on (571-272-7904. 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.
/MICHAEL T VU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights