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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 18, 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TANG (US 20220124836 with continuation no. PCT/CN2019/098035 filed on 07/26/2019) in view of FANG et al. (US 10956477).
Regarding claims 1, 18, 19, TANG (US 20220124836) teaches a method for reporting Artificial Intelligence (Al) network model support capability, comprising:
determining capability of supporting an Al network model (par. 55, 57), wherein the capability of supporting the Al network model comprises whether to support using the Al network model for channel estimation (par. 55, When the UE indicates that it has the capability of AI-based channel state information, the UE can use an AI method to determine channel states or determine channel state indication information, and can send the channel state information indication information); reporting the capability of supporting the Al network model using an uplink resource in a random access procedure (par. 56, 58-62, the UE sends first information, and the first information indicates that the UE supports AI-based target information indication. When the UE supports the AI-based target information indication, the UE can use an AI method to determine channel states or determine channel state indication information, and can send the indication information… The first information is carried by one of the following information: UE capability information, information included in a random access process, radio resource control (RRC) signaling and uplink control information (UCI)); and
based on that the capability of supporting the AI network model indicates supporting using the AI network model for channel estimation, reporting the AI network model through Msg3 (par. 56, 58-62, the UE sends first information, and the first information indicates that the UE supports AI-based target information indication. When the UE supports the AI-based target information indication, the UE can use an AI method to determine channel states or determine channel state indication information, and can send the indication information… The first information is carried by one of the following information: UE capability information, information included in a random access process, radio resource control (RRC) signaling and uplink control information (UCI)… Msg3 in the four-step random access process).
However, TANG does not teach reporting an input size or an output size of the AI network model.
But, FANG et al. (US 10956477) in similar or same field of endeavor teaches reporting an input size or an output size of the AI network model (col. 3 lines 11-21, col. 4 lines 1-6, 45-49, col. 9 lines 32-42, the analysis of the normalized script text may be conducted by a ML model which, when applied, selects a set of model-adapted tokens for processing (i.e., each model-adapted token being one or more normalized analytic tokens) and generates a prediction score based on the model-adapted tokens …The alert message may be configured to identify the malicious script and provide a description that highlights the model-adapted token or tokens (or analytic token or tokens) demonstrative in the malicious classification and provides the rationale for the classification…The reporting logic 165 relates the description 166 with the stored model-adapted token(s) 167 identified in the description 166 for inclusion in an alert message 168, which is directed (e.g., transmitted) to an administrator responsible for the network device 100 and/or a network on which the network device 110 is connected; the tokens represent the inputs into ML and produce outputs in ML, the set of model-adapted tokens, would indicating the input size).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system or method as taught by FANG in the system of TANG to provide description of the AI model.
The motivation would have been to adaptability to determine the channel in different environments or different channel quality parameters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THINH D TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3934. The examiner can normally be reached mon-fri 9-6.
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, FARUK HAMZA can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/THINH D TRAN/for /Thinh Tran/, Patent Examiner of Art Unit 2466 06/25/2026
Prosecution Insights