Patent Application 17752851 - NETWORK PARAMETER CONFIGURATION METHOD AND - Rejection
Appearance
Patent Application 17752851 - NETWORK PARAMETER CONFIGURATION METHOD AND
Title: NETWORK PARAMETER CONFIGURATION METHOD AND APPARATUS
Application Information
- Invention Title: NETWORK PARAMETER CONFIGURATION METHOD AND APPARATUS
- Application Number: 17752851
- Submission Date: 2025-04-09T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2022-05-25T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2022-05-25T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 455
- National Sub-Class: 419000
- Examiner Employee Number: 86531
- Art Unit: 2662
- Tech Center: 2600
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 0
- 103 Rejections: 2
Cited Patents
The following patents were cited in the rejection:
- US 0162783đ
- US 0220591đ
Office Action Text
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 . DETAILED ACTION This communication is a Final office action on merit. Claims 18-23 are canceled. Claims 26-29 are new. Claims 1-17, 24-29, are presently pending and have been considered below. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/22/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Restriction Applicant elects Group I, claims 1-17, 24-25, without traverse, for further examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-17 are directed to abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, following 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16), and October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, claim 1 is analyzed in steps below: Step 1: Claims 1 and 10 thus fall into one of the statutory categories. Step 2A: Claim 1 recites limitations âconstructing a search space based on an application requirement of a target neural network, wherein the search space comprises M elements, the M elements are used to indicate M network structures; each of the M elements comprises a quantity of blocks in a stage in a corresponding network structure and a channel quantity of each block, and M is a positive integer; and defining a target network structure from the M network structures based on a distribution relationship among unevaluated elements in the search space â draws to mathematical algorithm, which was identified as abstract idea in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. Step 2B: No additional elements or limitations have been recited that the courts have found to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05 I. A. Claim 10 recites a processor and memory, the memory is configured to store program instructions and the processor is configured to invoke the program instruction to perform steps recited in method of claim 1. However, those elements are specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, thus they are not significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05 I A. Dependent claims 2-10 do not add more meaningful limitations to claim 1, thus are rejected for the same reason. Dependent claims 11-12 do not add more meaningful limitations to claim 10, thus are rejected for the same reason. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. Claims 1, 15-17, 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111431571A, Zhang et al. (for citation purpose see US 2020/0220591 A1, Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang). As to claim 1, Zhang discloses a method performed by a network parameter configuration apparatus, the method comprising: obtaining operational state information of a network device (pars 0005, 0012, 0015, a base station receiving channel state information), wherein the operational state information comprises a state information set of each of N areas covered by the network device (pars 0133, 0136-0137, different channel states being assigned to different cells or coverage areas, together forming a state information set) and neighboring area information in D dimensions of the N areas, the state information set comprising state information subsets in D dimensions, wherein N is an integer greater than 1, and D is an integer greater than 0 (pars 0015-0016, 0160-0164, state information subsets in horizontal and vertical dimensions associated with multiple antennas system); performing negotiations to obtain target parameter subsets in the D dimensions of each of the N areas (pars 0007, 0012, a maximum allowed amplitude of weighting coefficient; pars 0015-0016, the precoding matrix being selected according to a desired performance level (e.g. target parameter subset)), wherein the negotiations are performed based on the state information subsets in the D dimensions of the N areas (Fig 1; pars 0011-0012, 0015-0016, 0133, 0136-0137, areas including neighboring cells/areas), the neighboring area information in the D dimensions of the N areas and a parameter configuration model, wherein the parameter configuration model comprises a performance prediction model and a neighboring area information encoding model (pars 0005, 0007, 0012-0013, 0015-0016, system parameters being configured or negotiated in consideration of constraints and conditions of CSIs, MIMO configuration/precoding, cell coverage, as well as performance analysis/estimation); and sending a configuration instruction to the network device to perform parameter configuration based on a target parameter set of each of the N areas that is carried in the configuration instruction, wherein the target parameter set of each area is obtained based on the target parameter subsets in the D dimensions of each area (pars 0007-0009, 0012-0015, a precoding matrix is configured/used for a base station with a MIMO antenna configuration in a coverage area). Although Zhang does not expressly disclose a negotiation process, consider Zhangâs teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention, configuration process for wireless communication system and device via communication between devices, e.g. base station or access points and wireless communication devices (UEs) is equivalent to the negotiation process of the claimed invention. As to claim 15, Zhang discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the network device is a base station of a wireless cellular network, and the area is a cell covered by the base station (Figs 2-3, 5; pars 0116-0117, 0120, 0123, 0129). As to claim 16, Zhang discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the network device is a Wi-Fi device of a Wi-Fi network, and the area is an area covered by the Wi-Fi device (Figs 2-3; pars 0003-0004, 0110, 0116, the WiFi device and system). As to claim 17, Zhang discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein an area V of the N areas is covered by signals of D frequency bands, the D dimensions being in a one-to-one correspondence with the D frequency bands, wherein D is a positive integer (Figs 7-10, 12). As to claim 24, it is an apparatus claim encompassed claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein. As to claim 25, it recites a computer readable storage medium storing program code configured executed to perform functions and steps in claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein. Claims 2, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of US 2016/0162783, Tan et al. (hereinafter Tan). As to claim 2, Zhang discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the performing negotiations based on the state information subsets in the D dimensions of each of the N areas comprises: performing T rounds of negotiations based on the state information subsets in the D dimensions of each of the N areas to obtain T reference parameter sets and T performance indicator expected value sets (pars 0007-0009, 0012, 0013-0016, indication of preferred precoding matrix, or PMI, indication of CBSR including maximum allowed amplitude of a weighting coefficient, amplitude restriction, subset of spatial/frequency group based on CSI feedback, etc.), wherein the T reference parameter sets are in a one-to-one correspondence with the T performance indicator expected value sets, the T reference parameter sets comprise reference parameter subsets in the D dimensions of each of the N areas, the T performance indicator expected value sets comprise performance indicator expected value subsets in the D dimensions of each of the N areas, and T is an integer greater than 0; and determining the target parameter set from the T reference parameter sets based on the T performance indicator expected value sets, wherein the target parameter set comprises the target parameter subsets in the D dimensions of each of the N areas (pars 0007-0009, 0012, 0013-0016). Zhang does not expressly disclose performing T rounds of negotiations. However, as indicated in the claim limitation, When T being 1, no iteration would be needed. Nevertheless, Tan, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches performing T rounds of negotiations based on the state information subsets in the D dimensions of each of the N areas to obtain T reference parameter sets and T performance indicator expected value sets (Figs 3-6, 8, 11, 17-19; pars 0010-0013, 0081-0082, 0095, 0108, 0114, 0119, 0123, iteratively adjusting communication parameters in a multi-cell wireless network to generate and evaluate global solutions based on local performance criteria and performance KPIs), wherein the T reference parameter sets are in a one-to-one correspondence with the T performance indicator expected value sets, the T reference parameter sets comprise reference parameter subsets in the D dimensions of each of the N areas, the T performance indicator expected value sets comprise performance indicator expected value subsets in the D dimensions of each of the N areas (Fig 6; pars 0081-0082, 0084, 0103, reference signals or KPIs corresponding to each iteration or optimization process in given converging cells), and T is an integer greater than 0; and determining the target parameter set from the T reference parameter sets based on the T performance indicator expected value sets, wherein the target parameter set comprises the target parameter subsets in the D dimensions of each of the N areas (Figs 3-6, 8, 11, 17-19; pars 0010-0013, 0059, 0072, 0081-0082, 0095, 0108, 0114, 0119, 0123). Therefore, consider Zhang and Tanâs teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Tanâs teachings in Zhangâs method to provide an iterative configuration or negotiation process for providing more dynamic or optimal parameter configuration and adjustment. As to claim 13, Zhang discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the determining the target parameter set from the T reference parameter sets based on the T performance indicator expected value sets comprises: calculating a performance value of each of the T reference parameter sets based on the T performance indicator expected value sets (see rejection in claim 2), the performance value of each reference parameter set being a sum or a weighted sum of performance indicator expected value subsets in the D dimensions in a performance indicator expected value set corresponding to the reference parameter set (see rejection in claim 2); and determining, from the T reference parameter sets, a reference parameter set with a largest performance value as the target parameter set (see rejection in claim 2). As to claim 14, Zhang as modified discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein before the performing negotiations, the method further comprises: obtaining the parameter configuration model of each of the N areas from a training device (Tan: pars 0009, 0060, 0067, 0090). 18-23. (Canceled) Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-12, 26-29 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 and overcome 35 USC 101 rejection. Applicant is also encouraged to carefully go through claim limitations to correct any potential antecedent basis issues in corresponding claims. Reasons for Allowance Prior art of record (Zhang and Tan) neither discloses alone nor teaches in combination functions and features recited in claim 3. Claims 4-12, directly or indirectly depend from claim 3. Claims 26 and 28 recite similar limitations as claim 3. Claims 27 and 29 depend from claims 26 and 28, respectively. Response to Arguments In light of applicantâs amendments, 35 USC 101 rejection with respect to claim 25 and 35 USC 112(b) rejection with respect to claims 1-17 and 24-25 have been withdrawn. As to applicantâs argument regarding merit rejection in claim 1, it is not persuasive, Zhang does disclose multiple areas or multiple cells under network coverage (Tan does no as well). Network system configuration and negotiation as taught in Zhang take various system constraints and conditions into consideration including channel state, multi-dimensional (MIMO) pre-encoding, as well as cells/areas under network coverage. See merit rejection above for more details. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Examinerâs Note Examiner has cited particular column, line number, paragraphs and/or figure(s) in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the reference(s) in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Qun Shen whose telephone number is (571) 270-7927. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Friday from 9:00-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Supervisor, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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). /QUN SHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662