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 § 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 8-9, 16-18, 23-25, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Cai et al. (2023/0118031), hereinafter Cai in view of Jia et al. (2021/0219222), hereinafter Jia and Wei et al. (2022/0400521), hereinafter Wei.
Re. Claims 1 and 9, Cai teaches a communication method, comprising: sending a first part of first information by a node on a base station side or an access point in a wireless local area network (Fig. 3, S210), wherein the first information is used for enabling a terminal to determine to initiate an artificial intelligence or machine learning operation-type service, and the first part of the first information comprises at least one of information related to a network node capability OR information related to a terminal capability (¶0074 - the fifth indication information is used to indicate the first device to send a capability of the first device; and the first device sends first capability information to the second device, where the first capability information includes at least one of the following information: computing capability information of the first device, storage capability information of the first device, information indicating whether the first device stores a first AI model, a neural network structure supported by the first device, a neural network scale supported by the first device, or an AI communication function supported by the first device, where the first AI model is any AI model. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”); sending a second part of the first information by a node on a core network side, wherein the second part of the first information comprises access strategy information (¶0164 - the first device may determine, based on the capability or the indication information reported by the second device, the information about the AI model that is to be delivered, so that an AI function can be enabled. In view of ¶1304-1306, which further outlines the information sent between devices, examiner interprets the use of the word “can” here to be indicative of having the potential to happen or not. The first and second devices sent information regarding which neural networks are supported between the two of them in order to select the networks to activate, indicating that some networks will remain inactive); and wherein the access strategy information comprises at least one of the following: indication information of allowing the terminal to initiate the artificial intelligence or machine learning operation-type service (¶0164 - the first device may determine, based on the capability or the indication information reported by the second device, the information about the AI model that is to be delivered, so that an AI function can be enabled. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”); access network type indication information; region indication information ;access time indication information; indication information of a network node computing capability requirement; OR indication information of a terminal computing capability requirement.
Yet, Cai does not expressly teach determining, by the terminal, to initiate the artificial intelligence or machine learning operation-type service based on information with a high priority among conflicting information, in a case where a conflict exists between the first part of the first information and the second part of the first information, and wherein the at least one network node capability indication information comprises: radio resource capability indication information, and backlink bandwidth indication information.
However, Jia explicitly teaches determining, by the terminal, to initiate the artificial intelligence or machine learning operation-type service based on information with a high priority among conflicting information, in a case where a conflict exists between the first part of the first information and the second part of the first information (Fig. 3, ¶0007 - the first management unit sends a network slice request message to a second management unit based on the service request message, where the network slice request message carries priority information, the priority information is used to indicate a priority of the tenant or a priority of the service. & ¶0064 - The second management unit selects the network slice for the service of the tenant based on the priority information. Examiner introduces this reference absent the context of the network slice request. Under the obviousness standard of 35 U.S.C. § 103, a combination of references is rendered obvious should a person having ordinary skill in the art be able to understand the combination and have a motivation to combine the technologies. Here, Jia shows that utilizing a high priority when information conflicts is a known process in the art and would be easily applied to the communication between BS and UE when indicating an artificial intelligence process, as the process applied to the network slice request is not reliant on the process being performed);
Yet, the combination of Cai and Jia does not expressly teach wherein the at least one network node capability indication information comprises: radio resource capability indication information, and backlink bandwidth indication information.
However, Wei explicitly teaches wherein the at least one network node capability indication information comprises: backlink bandwidth indication information (¶0165 - the plurality of predicted network situation indicators includes predicted usage of backhaul and/or fronthaul bandwidth.) and the backlink bandwidth indication information comprises a bandwidth of an interface link between the base station and a dedicated server providing the artificial intelligence or the machine learning operation-type service (¶0056 - In some embodiments related to handover situations, the RACH happens after a source network entity, i.e. base station, sends a handover request to a target network entity, i.e. base station, which acknowledges the handover and performs admission control of the connection request. Examiner interprets the bandwidth information to be related to the connection made between the base station and the server. Here, Wei discloses that a connection is made between a base station and another network entity, which includes the server hosting the AI. The included “e.g.” is a non-exhaustive list that is provided for example rather than outlining all possible options. As such, Examiner interprets this to disclose that the bandwidth measured in ¶0165 is the link between a BS and another network entity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Jia and Wei to the teaching of Cai. The motivation for such would be to improve transmission effectivity and overall networking processes as Jia expressly discloses making a determination on which information to transmit in the event of a conflict (Jia ¶0007) and Wei discloses that a capability information includes backhaul bandwidth information (Wei ¶0165). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claims 8 and 16, Cai, Jia, and Wei teach Claims 1 and 9.
Additionally, Cai further teaches wherein the access strategy information comprises at least one of the following: indication information of a radio resource requirement (¶0401 - The configuration information may include, for example, but not limited to, one or a combination of at least two of radio resource control signaling, media access control (MAC) layer signaling, and physical layer signaling).
Re. Claim 17, Cai, Jia, and Wei teach Claim 9.
Additionally, Cai teaches wherein determining to initiate the artificial intelligence or machine learning operation-type service based on the first information further comprises at least one of the following: determining to initiate the artificial intelligence or machine learning operation- type service in response to a comparison result between at least one of the at least one network node capability indication information and a corresponding threshold; determining to initiate the artificial intelligence or machine learning operation- type service in response to a comparison result between at least one of the at least one terminal capability information and a corresponding threshold; OR determining to initiate the artificial intelligence or machine learning operation- type service in response to a judgment result indicating that at least one of the access strategy information is met (Fig. 10, ¶0164 - the first device may determine, based on the capability or the indication information reported by the second device, the information about the AI model that is to be delivered, so that an AI function can be enabled. In view of ¶1304-1306, which further outlines the information sent between devices, Examiner interprets that the judgement of whether to initiate the AI/ML is a result of the comparison of the second device’s access capability and the first device determining that a requirement has been met. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”).
Re. Claim 18, Cai, Jia, and Wei teach Claim 9.
Additionally, Cai further teaches obtaining setting information related to the artificial intelligence or machine learning operation-type service (¶0163 - the first device sends information about an AI model to the second device based on the tenth indication information. Examiner interprets that the first node is sending the information, which is then received by the second node); and determining to initiate the artificial intelligence or machine learning operation-type service based on the setting information (¶0164 - the first device may determine, based on the capability or the indication information reported by the second device, the information about the AI model that is to be delivered, so that an AI function can be enabled. Examiner interprets that based on the second node’s response received by the first node the system can then decide whether to enable the AI function. The setting data is further exemplified in ¶1304-1306 which discusses the communication between the two nodes).
Re. Claim 23, Claim 23 is an apparatus claim relating to Claim 1. Cai further teaches an electronic device, comprising a memory and a processor; wherein the memory stores a computer program; and when the computer program is executed by the processor (Fig. 17). For the remainder of the method limitations of Claim 23, Applicant is directed to the rejection of Claim 1 under Cai, Jia, and Wei
Re. Claim 24, Cai, Jia, and Wei teach Claim 1.
Additionally, Cai further teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, in response to being run by a processor, is used for executing the method (¶1523 - The embodiments may further provide a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium may store instructions. When the instructions are run on a computer, the computer is enabled to perform the steps performed by the first device in the methods shown).
Re. Claim 25, Cai, Jia, and Wei teach Claim 9.
Additionally, Cai further teaches an electronic device, comprising a memory and a processor; wherein the memory stores a computer program; and the processor is used for executing the communication method in response to running the computer program (Fig. 17).
Re. Claim 29, Cai, Jia, and Wei teach Claim 1.
Additionally, Cai further teaches wherein the at least one network node capability indication information further comprises: computing capability indication information (¶0074 - the fifth indication information is used to indicate the first device to send a capability of the first device; and the first device sends first capability information to the second device, where the first capability information includes at least one of the following information: computing capability information of the first device, storage capability information of the first device, information indicating whether the first device stores a first AI model, a neural network structure supported by the first device, a neural network scale supported by the first device, or an AI communication function supported by the first device, where the first AI model is any AI model.);
Yet, the combination of Cai and Jia does not explicitly teach a radio resource capability indication information, wherein the radio resource capability indication information comprises a bandwidth provided by the network node and a current spectrum utilization.
However, Wei expressly teaches a radio resource capability indication information, wherein the radio resource capability indication information comprises a bandwidth provided by the network node and a current spectrum utilization (¶0056 - the network entity receives a connection request to the mobile telecommunications system, such as a RRC (“Radio Resource Control”) connection request in a random access procedure over a RACH (“Random Access Channel”), a RRC resume request, or the like from, for example, a user equipment and performs an admission control in order to determine an admission permission or an admission rejection of the received connection request, i.e. whether current resources of the mobile telecommunications system are sufficient to establish a connection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Wei to the teaching of Cai and Jia. The motivation for such would be to improve the efficiency of the transmission as Wei provides further specification regarding the Radio Resource Capability information (¶0165, Wei). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 30, Cai, Jia, and Wei teach Claim 1.
Yet, the combination of Cai and Jia does not expressly teach wherein the backlink bandwidth indication information further comprises a bandwidth of an interface link between a base station and a core network element.
However, Wei further teaches wherein the backlink bandwidth indication information further comprises a bandwidth of an interface link between a base station and a core network element (¶0165 - the plurality of predicted network situation indicators includes predicted usage of backhaul and/or fronthaul bandwidth, & ¶0056 - In some embodiments related to handover situations, the RACH happens after a source network entity, i.e. base station, sends a handover request to a target network entity, i.e. base station, which acknowledges the handover and performs admission control of the connection request).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Wei to the teaching of Cai and Jia. The motivation for such would be to improve the efficiency of the transmission as Wei provides further specification regarding the backlink bandwidth (¶0165, Wei). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claims 4, 7, 12, 15, and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai in view of Jia, Wei, and Zheng et al. (2022/0030457), hereinafter Zheng.
Re. Claims 4 and 12, Cai, Jia, and Wei teach Claims 1 and 9.
Yet, Cai, Jia, and Wei do not expressly teach wherein the information related to the network node capability further comprises a threshold corresponding to each network node capability indication information among the at least one network node capability indication information.
However, Zheng explicitly teaches wherein the information related to the network node capability further comprises a threshold corresponding to each network node capability indication information among the at least one network node capability indication information (¶0093 - The advance measurement condition includes at least one of a measurement threshold of a… target serving cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Zheng to the teaching of Cai, Jia, and Wei. The motivation for such would be to improve transmission efficiency as Zheng provides a threshold corresponding to the capability indication information (¶0093, Zheng). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claims 7 and 15, Cai, Jia, and Wei teach Claims 1 and 9.
Yet, Cai, Jia, and Wei do not expressly teach wherein the at least one terminal capability information comprises at least one of the following: terminal computing capability information or terminal electric quantity information.
Additionally, Zheng teaches wherein the at least one terminal capability information comprises at least one of the following: terminal computing capability information (¶0102 - The state information includes at least one of network coverage information, downlink channel quality, a geographic location, a serving cell, a service frequency, a service attribute, power headroom information, buffer requirement information, a terminal type, and an antenna quantity. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”); OR terminal electric quantity information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Zheng to the teaching of Cai, Jia, and Wei. The motivation for such would be to improve transmission efficiency as Zheng provides that terminal capability information may include terminal computing capability information (¶0102, Zheng). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claims 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai in view of Jia, Wei, and Ahn et al. (2013/0094382), hereinafter Ahn.
Re. Claim 10, Cai, Jia, and Wei teach Claim 9.
Additionally, Cai teaches wherein the first information comprises at least one of the following: information related to a terminal capability (¶1271 - the AI capability of the second device includes: a computing capability of the second device, a storage capability of the second device, information indicating whether the second device stores an AI model having a function, a neural network structure supported by the second device, a neural network scale supported by the second device, or an AI communication function supported by the second device. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”) OR access strategy information
Yet, the combination of Cai, Jia, and Wei does not expressly teach wherein the information related to the terminal capability comprises: a threshold corresponding to each terminal capability information among at least one terminal capability information.
However, Ahn explicitly teaches wherein the information related to the terminal capability comprises: a threshold corresponding to each terminal capability information among at least one terminal capability information (¶0090 - A threshold value recommended by each UE may be included in the UE capability information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Ahn to the teaching of Cai, Jia, and Wei. The motivation for such would be to improve transmission efficiency as Ahn provides that each block of terminal capability information has a corresponding threshold (¶0090, Ahn). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 6, Cai, Jia, and Wei teach Claim 1.
Additionally, Applicant is directed to the rejection of Claim 10, which contains the same language of Claim 6. Claim 6 is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 10.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai in view of Jia, Wei, and Calzolari et al. (2020/0412417), hereinafter Calzolari.
Re. Claim 19, Cai, Jia, and Wei teach Claim 9.
Additionally, Cai further teaches determining whether to initiate the artificial intelligence or machine learning operation- type service based on the setting information (¶0164 - the first device may determine, based on the capability or the indication information reported by the second device, the information about the AI model that is to be delivered, so that an AI function can be enabled. Examiner interprets that based on the second node’s response received by the first node the system can then decide whether to enable the AI function. The setting data is further exemplified in ¶1304-1306 which discusses the communication between the two nodes).
Yet, the combination of Cai, Jia, and Wei does not expressly teach obtaining, in response to a conflict between information contained in the first information, priority information of the information with the conflict.
However, Calzolari explicitly teaches obtaining, in response to a conflict between information contained in the first information, priority information of the information with the conflict (¶0018 - The threshold value corresponding to the highest output probability may be selected as the updated dynamic threshold, and the UE may use this updated threshold value for determining whether to switch from the currently active [selection] to a different, more “optimal” [selection]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Calzolari to the teaching of Zheng. The motivation for such would be as Calzolari provides context for other configuration information, including making a selection based on a conflict of information (¶0018, Calzolari). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claims 27 & 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai in view of Jia, Wei, and Wang et al. (2025/0071040), hereinafter Wang.
Re. Claim 27, Cai, Jia, and Wei teach Claim 1.
Yet, the combination of Cai, Jia, and Wei does not expressly teach wherein the access network type indication information represents a network type that the terminal needs to access; the region indication information represents a location that the terminal needs to be located; or the access time indication information represents a time period when the network node allows the terminal to initiate the artificial intelligence or the machine learning operation-type service.
However, Wang explicitly teaches wherein the access network type indication information represents a network type that the terminal needs to access; the region indication information represents a location that the terminal needs to be located; OR the access time indication information represents a time period when the network node allows the terminal to initiate the artificial intelligence or the machine learning operation-type service (¶0635 - Edge computing services are used to provide dynamic and adaptive network allocation with edge computing capabilities for converged networks for accessing multi-mode heterogeneous networks. Time, different bandwidth, and different time slot networks, so that network resources can be allocated dynamically, automatically and reasonably. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Wang to the teaching of Cai, Jia, and Wei. The motivation for such would be in order to improve data storage and organization to improve transmission as Wang provides that the indication information can include a time slot that the operation should occur within (¶0635, Wang). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 28, Cai, Jia, and Wei teach Claim 1.
Yet, the combination of Cai, Jia, and Wei does not expressly teach wherein the communication method further comprises: sending an indication rule, wherein the indication rule is configured to specify valid information in the first information to the terminal.
However, Wang explicitly teaches wherein the communication method further comprises: sending an indication rule, wherein the indication rule is configured to specify valid information in the first information to the terminal (¶0731 - The data calibration technology can effectively ensure the validity of the data reported by the terminal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Wang to the teaching of Cai, Jia, and Wei. The motivation for such would be in order to improve transmission by ensuring the information sent is valid as Wang provides a rule configured to validify information to the terminal (¶0731, Wang). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9, and 23 have been fully considered but are rendered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection. Examiner has supplied two new references Jia et al. (2021/0219222) and Wei et al. (2022/0400521) in consideration with Cai et al. (2023/0118031) to reject the independent claims on new grounds in accordance with the substantial amendments provided by the Applicant. As such, Examiner maintains the rejection on independent Claims 1, 9 and 23, and all subsequent dependent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
• Li et al (WO 2020077523 A1) – Pg. 1 Line 21 - Pg. 2 Line 18;
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH JAMES SUGDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7406. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00-6:00 ET, Fri 9:00-1:00 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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/N.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475