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 07/21/2025, 08/12/2025 and 11/15/2025 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 4, 7-8, 12-18 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.
Claim 4, line 3 the recited “for the wireless channel” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Claims 1, 3 and 4 do not previously claim a “wireless channel”, it is unclear which “wireless channel” the “the wireless channel” refers to.
Claim 7 (depends on claims 1 and 3), lines 4-5 recite “determining whether to deploy the SRS transmission configuration based on the confidence scores”.
As currently worded, the above limitation contradicts the claimed “and transmitting the control message to the UE to update the SRS transmission configuration” of claim 1.
Claim 1 requires the UE “to update the SRS transmission configuration” but claim 7 appears to claim that there is a decision as to whether to deploy the SRS transmission configuration.
Additionally, it is also unclear which entity (the UE?) performs the claimed “to deploy”.
Claim 8 depends on claim 7 and is also rejected since it depends on rejected claim 7.
Claim 8 further claims “…selecting a default SRS transmission configuration for the UE”. It is unclear how the limitations of claim 8 are linked to the “SRS transmission configuration” of claim 1. Refer to the claimed “determining an SRS transmission configuration for the UE…generating a control message comprising the SRS transmission configuration; and transmitting the control message to the UE to updated the SRS transmission configuration”.
Claim 12, lines 4-5 recite “a plurality of output heads, each output head configured to generate a respective physical-layer insight based on the encoded representation”.
Claim 12 depends on claim 1 which claims “one or more physical-layer insights” (lines 6-7).
In claim 12 it is not clear how the claimed “a respective physical-layer insight” corresponds to or is mapped to one physical-layer insight (which meets the claimed “one or more physical-layer insights” of claim 1).
Dependent claims 13-18 are also rejected since they depend on rejected claim 12.
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.
Claims 1-2, 11, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levitsky et al. (US 2023/0421320) in view of Ding et al. (US 2021/0314197).
With respect to claim 1, Levitsky et al. disclose:
determining an SRS transmission configuration for a UE based on one or more physical-layer insights (Fig. 6, at least step 620, and [0121]-[0123] the disclosed “SRS reconfiguration”, “For example, the network node 605 may determine the modification and/or the modified information based at least on a current SNR of a channel between the UE 120 and the network node 605, a channel type or channel delay spread characteristics or channel frequency response characteristics…” also related [0105] “…the network node and the UE to reduce SRS overhead (e.g., SRS periodicity) as a function of the UE's mobility and/or Doppler spread, SNR”. For example, the “Doppler spread” corresponds to a physical-layer insight. Also refer to at least lines 1-5 of [0124], lines 1-4 of [0105]);
generating a control message comprising the SRS transmission configuration (Fig. 6, the claimed generating is performed by the network node and associated with step 625, refer to the indication (control message), [0124], [0126], lines 1-3 of [0127], [0132]) ; and transmitting the control message (Fig. 6, transmission of the indication in step 625) to the UE to update the SRS transmission configuration (updated according to the modified SRS configuration or an SRS reconfiguration [0121] and paragraphs already cited above. Also refer to step 635, [0145]).
Levitsky et al. do not disclose: receiving channel estimation
data associated with a user equipment (UE); processing the channel estimation data using a machine-learned model to generate one or more physical-layer insights.
Implementing doppler spread estimation, Ding et al. disclose: receiving channel estimation data (e.g. Fig. 3, [0056] Doppler spread estimator 100, receives estimated channel(s)); processing the channel estimation data using a machine-learned model to generate one or more physical-layer insights (120 Doppler shift predictor outputs estimated doppler shifts (Doppler spread in [0050] and “the present disclosure relate to using supervised learning (e.g., using a machine learning model such as a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) neural network or other neural network)…”, approximate middle of [0052], [0056] “trained Doppler shift predictor”, [0006] “supervised machine learning” and refer to related Fig. 10 (or Fig. 11). The estimated (predicted) delay spread corresponds to a physical-layer insight).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levitsky et al. based on the cited teachings of Ding et al. to perform 620 in response to performing Doppler spread prediction, by receiving channel estimation data (out of a channel estimator, and refer to [0080] of Levitsky et al. disclosing a base station may measure an uplink reference signal (e.g. SRS of [0079] and configured at 610) to estimate…Doppler spread associated with the uplink channel) associated with the UE ( (the UE 120 of Fig. 6), processing the channel estimation data using a machine-learned model (as taught by Ding et al.) to generate robust estimates (predicted) of Doppler spread, by using actual behavior of operational radio communication systems, rather than relying on particular assumptions about the operating environment and the behavior of those systems (Ding et al. [0050], [0056]).
With respect to claim 2, modified Levitsky et al. disclose: wherein the SRS transmission configuration comprises at least one of a transmission periodicity and a resource allocation (approximate middle of [0100] “SRS resource allocation …periodicity…”, [0125] “…modified periodicity…” or refer to the repetition configuration R (repetition factor) and gap of [0132] and R and the different gaps of [0158]. [0106] “New combinations of number of SRS symbols and number of repetitions…enable excess SRS repetitions to be avoided…”, [0122] “…modified repetition factor…modified SRS symbol locations…modified number of SRS symbols per resource…”).
With respect to claim 11, modified Levistky et al. disclose:
adjusting the transmission periodicity to a closest supported value from a predefined set of SRS periodicities (e.g. refer to Fig. 7C, and [0158] the bitmap enables configurations of repetitions with different time gaps. The adjusting the transmission periodicity corresponds to selecting a transmission periodicity (to a closest supported, indicated by the bitmap) out of the predefined set of SRS periodicities (configurations) enabled by the bitmap of [0158]. Also refer to related [0115]).
Apparatus claim 19 is rejected based on the rationale used to reject claim 1 above. The network node 605 of Levitsky et al. comprises the claimed one or more hardware processors ([0010], [0225]); and one or more non-transitory, machine-readable storage media encoded with instructions that, when executed by the one or more hardware processors ([0010], [0225] “processor” and related [0287]) cause the system to perform operations comprising.
Claim 20 is rejected based on the rationale used to reject claim 1 above. The limitations in the preamble are disclosed by Levitsky et al. in at least [0010], also related [0287]).
8. Claims 1-3, 11, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levitsky et al. (US 2023/0421320) in view of Jiang et al. (US 2024/0275642)(reference cited in the 07/21/2025 IDS).
With respect to claim 1, Levitsky et al. disclose:
determining an SRS transmission configuration for a UE based on one or more physical-layer insights (Fig. 6, at least step 620, and [0121]-[0123] the disclosed “SRS reconfiguration”, “For example, the network node 605 may determine the modification and/or the modified information based at least on a current SNR of a channel between the UE 120 and the network node 605, a channel type or channel delay spread characteristics or channel frequency response characteristics…” For example, the “delay spread”, also in [0080],[0132] corresponds to a physical-layer insight. Also refer to at least lines 1-5 of [0124];
generating a control message comprising the SRS transmission configuration (Fig. 6, the claimed generating is performed by the network node and associated with step 625, refer to the indication (control message), [0124], [0126], lines 1-3 of [0127], [0132]) ; and transmitting the control message (Fig. 6, transmission of the indication in step 625) to the UE to update the SRS transmission configuration (updated according to the modified SRS configuration or an SRS reconfiguration [0121] and paragraphs already cited above. Also refer to step 635, [0145]).
Levitsky et al. do not disclose: receiving channel estimation
data associated with a user equipment (UE); processing the channel estimation data using a machine-learned model to generate one or more physical-layer insights.
Implementing estimation of channel characteristics, Jiang et al. disclose: receiving channel estimation data associated with a user equipment (UE)(approximate second half of [0037], [0039], [0056] (…the system may generate a channel fingerprint at time t, representing an estimate of the channel's doppler, delay spread, and signal to noise ratio”, also [0061], Fig. 10, [0064]-[0065]. For example the channel estimate column vector based on the SRS at time t (corresponds to the claimed receiving channel estimation data), [0061]); processing the channel estimation data using a machine-learned model to generate one or more physical-layer insights (Fig. 8C and Fig. 10, [0061]”...the combined channel prediction and fingerprinting method can generate a channel prediction from time t+1 to t+k, a channel prediction from time t+k+1 to t+2k+1, and a channel fingerprint at time t+k”, add two head structure of Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levitsky et al. based on the cited teachings
Jiang et al. to perform receiving channel estimation data associated with a user equipment (UE) (using an architecture of Fig. 8C [0028] and AI model of Fig. 10 used for channel prediction and fingerprinting [0030]); processing the channel estimation data (the channel estimate column vector based on the SRS at time t, used in Fig. 8C, [0061]) using a machine-learned model to generate one or more physical-layer insights (generate at least an estimate (AI model based, trained as disclosed in at least [0065] of the channel’s delay spread) to accurately estimate and predict the delay spread of the the channel of Levitsky et al. (Jiang et al., [0003], [0061]) improving scheduling and resource allocation (e.g. in step 620) of Levitsky et al.
With respect to claim 2, modified Levitsky et al. disclose: wherein the SRS transmission configuration comprises at least one of a transmission periodicity and a resource allocation (approximate middle of [0100] “SRS resource allocation …periodicity…”, [0125] “…modified periodicity…” or refer to the repetition configuration R (repetition factor) and gap of [0132] and R and the different gaps of [0158]. [0106] “New combinations of number of SRS symbols and number of repetitions…enable excess SRS repetitions to be avoided…”, [0122] “…modified repetition factor…modified SRS symbol locations…modified number of SRS symbols per resource…”).
With respect to claim 3, modified Levitsky et al. disclose: wherein the one (refer to the delay spread of [0123]) or more physical-layer insights comprise at least one of a Doppler value and a delay spread value (refer to lines 1-4 of [0064] of Jiang et al., the two head (output) layer structure of the AI model of Fig. 10, outputs insights on Doppler value and delay spread).
With respect to claim 11, modified Levistky et al. disclose:
adjusting the transmission periodicity to a closest supported value from a predefined set of SRS periodicities (e.g. refer to Fig. 7C, and [0158] the bitmap enables configurations of repetitions with different time gaps. The adjusting the transmission periodicity corresponds to selecting a transmission periodicity (to a closest supported, indicated by the bitmap) out of the predefined set of SRS periodicities (configurations) enabled by the bitmap of [0158]. Also refer to related [0115]).
Apparatus claim 19 is rejected based on the rationale used to reject claim 1 above. The network node 605 of Levitsky et al. comprises the claimed one or more hardware processors ([0010], [0225]); and one or more non-transitory, machine-readable storage media encoded with instructions that, when executed by the one or more hardware processors ([0010], [0225] “processor” and related [0287]) cause the system to perform operations comprising.
Claim 20 is rejected based on the rationale used to reject claim 1 above. The limitations in the preamble are disclosed by Levitsky et al. in at least [0010], also related [0287]).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 5-6,9-10 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.
10. Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Levitsky et al. (US 2022/0368485) refer to the method of Fig. 6.
Chaki (US 2026/0067131) refer to the systems of Fig. 5A, 5C, 5D, Fig. 6A, Fig. 7C.
Nielsen et al. (WO 2025/229578) refer to the method of Fig. 2, specifically steps 205, 207, 211 and 213 (Dynamic SRS configuration adjustment).
Contact Information
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA VLAHOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5507. The examiner can normally be reached M 8:00-4:00, TWRF 8:00-2:00.
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, SAM K AHN can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
SOPHIA VLAHOS
Examiner
Art Unit 2633
/SOPHIA VLAHOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633 08/19/2026
Prosecution Insights