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 .
Response to Arguments
Following response to arguments is based on Applicant’s arguments filed on 23 October 2025.
Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant’s arguments [Pages 7-12] with respect to rejection of claims 1, 30, 31 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s).
Regarding claim 1, on pages 7-9, Applicant argues that prior art of record fails to teach “detecting performance of a locally deployed model, wherein the locally deployed model is used to enhance communication network functions or calculation of signals and/or parameters in communication… wherein said determining whether the update for the locally deployed model is required comprises: determining that the update for the locally deployed model is required in response to the performance of the locally deployed model falling below an expected threshold”.
The Examiner respectfully submits that claim 1’s overall scope is basically updating a software without providing further details about the claimed model, how the network functions are enhanced, how the parameters/signals are calculated or what variables/parameters the threshold comprises. Hence, based on this general reciting, the Examiner is not precluded from current interpretation.
For the purpose of the examination, a newly found reference, Jung, is introduced. Jung discloses a communication system which analyzes whether a deployed model needs to be updated based on performance of the modeled related to thresholds. A person having ordinary skills in the art would then recognize that these thresholds are to be configured to measure top or bottom values for the update of the model [Paragraphs 25, 35].
Regarding claims 30 and 31, these claims have been amended to incorporate similar limitations to those set forth in independent claim 1, and are rejected based on similar reasoning.
Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the rejections.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 30-31, 33-37 have been amended. Claim 6 has been canceled. Claims 14-29, 32 were previously canceled. Thus, claims 1-5, 7-13, 30-31, 33-37 are presented for examination.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-9, 11, 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0141968) in view of Jung (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0056411).
Regarding claim 1, Lloyd teaches a model updating method (Fig. 2), comprising:
detecting performance of a locally deployed model (a determination to update a model is established [Paragraphs 8-10]), [
determining whether an update for the locally deployed model is required (a determination to update a model is established [Paragraphs 8-10]); [
cooperating with a network to update the locally deployed model based on determining that the update for the locally deployed model is required (the model is then updated according to current network [Paragraphs 23, 30, 48]).
However, Lloyd does not explicitly mention: wherein the locally deployed model is used to enhance communication network functions or calculation of signals and/or parameters in communication… wherein said determining whether the update for the locally deployed model is required comprises: determining that the update for the locally deployed model is required in response to the performance of the locally deployed model falling below an expected threshold.
Jung teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein the locally deployed model is used to enhance communication network functions or calculation of signals and/or parameters in communication… wherein said determining whether the update for the locally deployed model is required comprises: determining that the update for the locally deployed model is required in response to the performance of the locally deployed model falling below an expected threshold (The Examiner respectfully submits that claim 1’s overall scope is basically updating a software without providing further details about the claimed model, how the network functions are enhanced, how the parameters/signals are calculated or what variables/parameters the threshold comprises. Hence, based on this general reciting, the Examiner is not precluded from current interpretation. For the purpose of the examination, a newly found reference, Jung, is introduced. Jung discloses a communication system which analyzes whether a deployed model needs to be updated based on performance of the modeled related to thresholds. A person having ordinary skills in the art would then recognize that these thresholds are to be configured to measure top or bottom values for the update of the model [Paragraphs 25, 35]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Lloyd) by updating the system based on threshold (as taught by Jung) for the purpose of improving the learning network (Jung – Paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 2, Lloyd further teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein prior to said determining whether the update for the locally deployed model is required, the method further comprises: obtaining attribute information of the locally deployed model ([Paragraphs 29, 53]);
said determining whether the update for the locally deployed model is required further comprises: determining whether the update for the locally deployed model is required based on the attribute information ([Paragraphs, 9, 11-12, 29, 32, 34, 37, 41, 53]); and
said cooperating with the network to update the locally deployed model comprises: initiating a model updating procedure to the network to interact with the network on update data, wherein the update data is used to update the locally deployed model ([Paragraphs 3, 24, 34, 47-48]).
Regarding claim 3, Lloyd further teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the attribute information comprises at least one of following: an identifier of the model, a version number of the model, a validity period of the model, a type of the model, a volume of the model, or accuracy of the model ([Paragraphs 11, 26, 34, 37]).
Regarding claim 4, Lloyd further teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein prior to said determining whether the update for the locally deployed model is required, the method further comprises: receiving model information from the network, wherein the model information comprises at least one of the identifier of the model, the version number of the model, the validity period of the model, the type of the model, the volume of the model, or the accuracy of the model ([Paragraphs 11, 26, 34, 37]); and said determining whether the update for the locally deployed model is required based on the attribute information ([Paragraph 23]) comprises: comparing the model information with the attribute information to determine whether an updated model exists in the network ([Paragraph 34]); and determining that the update for the locally deployed model ([Paragraph 30]) is required based on that the updated model exists in the network ([Paragraph 26]).
Regarding claim 8, Lloyd further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein said determining whether the update for the locally deployed model is required further comprises: determining that the update for the locally deployed model is required in response to receiving a model updating instruction from the network ([Paragraph 23]), wherein the model updating instruction is transmitted to a terminal when the network determines that an update for a model deployed at the terminal is required ([Paragraphs 23-25, 29]); and said cooperating with the network to update the locally deployed model comprises: interacting with the network on update data ([Paragraphs 29-30, 34, 41]), wherein the update data is used to update the locally deployed model ([Paragraph 30]).
Regarding claim 9, Lloyd further teaches the method according to claim 8, further comprising: transmitting relevant information of the locally deployed model to the network ([Paragraph 23, 43]), wherein the relevant information enables the network to determine whether the update for the model deployed at the terminal transmitting the relevant information is required ([Paragraphs 29, 45, 65]).
Regarding claim 11, Lloyd further teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein the relevant information is reported to the network along with a measurement report ([Paragraph 43-44]).
Regarding claim 30, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 31, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 36, Lloyd further teaches the terminal according to claim 31, wherein the processor is further caused to obtain attribute information of the locally deployed model ([Paragraph 23]); said determining whether the update for the locally deployed model is required further comprises: determining whether the update for the locally deployed model is required based on the attribute information ([Paragraphs 23-25, 29]); and said cooperating with the network to update the locally deployed model comprises: initiating a model updating procedure to the network to interact with the network on update data ([Paragraphs 29-30, 34, 41]), wherein the update data is used to update the locally deployed model ([Paragraph 30]).
Regarding claim 37, Lloyd further teaches the terminal according to claim 31, wherein said determining whether the update for the locally deployed model is required further comprises: determining that the update for the locally deployed model is required in response to receiving a model updating instruction from the network ([Paragraph 23]), wherein the model updating instruction is transmitted to the terminal when the network determines that an update for a model deployed at the terminal is required (Paragraphs 23-25, 29); and said cooperating with the network to update the locally deployed model comprises: interacting with the network on update data (Paragraphs 29-30, 34, 41), wherein the update data is used to update the locally deployed model ([Paragraph 30]).
Claims 5, 7 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0141968) in view of Jung (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0056411) and further in view of Searle et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0291959).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lloyd and Jung teaches all the limitations recited in claim 2.
However, the combination of Lloyd and Jung does not explicitly mention: wherein based on that the attribute information comprises the validity period of the model, said determining whether the update for the locally deployed model is required further comprises: determining that the update for the locally deployed model is required in response to the validity period of the model expiring.
Searle teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein based on that the attribute information comprises the validity period of the model, said determining whether the update for the locally deployed model is required further comprises: determining that the update for the locally deployed model is required in response to the validity period of the model expiring ([Paragraphs 349, 1854, 4018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Lloyd) by updating the system based on threshold (as taught by Jung) by updating the system based on expiration time (as taught by Searle) for the purpose of securely delivering structured data (Searle – Paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 7, Lloyd further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the expected threshold is received from the network or is acquired locally ([Paragraph 30]).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Lloyd and Jung teaches all the limitations recited in claim 3.
However, the combination of Lloyd and Jung does not explicitly mention: wherein based on that the attribute information comprises the validity period of the model, said determining whether the update for the locally deployed model is required further comprises: determining that the update for the locally deployed model is required in response to the validity period of the model expiring.
Searle teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein based on that the attribute information comprises the validity period of the model, said determining whether the update for the locally deployed model is required further comprises: determining that the update for the locally deployed model is required in response to the validity period of the model expiring ([Paragraphs 349, 1854, 4018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Lloyd) by updating the system based on threshold (as taught by Jung) by updating the system based on expiration time (as taught by Searle) for the purpose of securely delivering structured data (Searle – Paragraph 49).
Claims 10, 13, 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0141968) in view of Jung (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0056411) and further in view of Rayavarapu (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0260811).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lloyd and Jung teaches all the limitations recited in claim 9.
However, the combination of Lloyd and Jung does not explicitly mention: wherein the relevant information exists in Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling, or in a Network Attached Storage (NAS) container of RRC signaling, or in a non-NAS container of RRC signaling.
Rayavarapu teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein the relevant information exists in Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling, or in a Network Attached Storage (NAS) container of RRC signaling, or in a non-NAS container of RRC signaling ([Paragraphs 77-78, 98, 110, 132]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Lloyd) by updating the system based on threshold (as taught by Jung) by using RRC (as taught by Rayavarapu) for the purpose of providing connectivity (Rayavarapu – Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lloyd and Jung teaches all the limitations recited in claim 8.
However, the combination of Lloyd and Jung does not explicitly mention: wherein the model updating instruction is carried by RRC signaling based on being in a connected state.
Rayavarapu teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein the model updating instruction is carried by RRC signaling based on being in a connected state ([Paragraphs 239, 241]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Lloyd) by updating the system based on threshold (as taught by Jung) by using RRC (as taught by Rayavarapu) for the purpose of providing connectivity (Rayavarapu – Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Lloyd and Jung teaches all the limitations recited in claim 9.
However, the combination of Lloyd and Jung does not explicitly mention: wherein the model updating instruction is carried by RRC signaling based on being in a connected state.
Rayavarapu teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein the model updating instruction is carried by RRC signaling based on being in a connected state ([Paragraphs 239, 241]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Lloyd) by updating the system based on threshold (as taught by Jung) by using RRC (as taught by Rayavarapu) for the purpose of providing connectivity (Rayavarapu – Paragraph 4).
Claims 12 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0141968) in view of Jung (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0056411) and further in view of Searle et al. (Searle2) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0291940).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lloyd and Jung teaches all the limitations recited in claim 8.
However, the combination of Lloyd and Jung does not explicitly mention: wherein the model updating instruction is carried by paging information or system information based on being in a disconnected state; and following receiving the model updating instruction from the network, the method further comprises: switching from the disconnected state to a connected state to cooperate with the network to update the locally deployed model; and resuming the disconnected state after update for the locally deployed model is completed.
Searle2 teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein the model updating instruction is carried by paging information or system information based on being in a disconnected state ([Paragraphs 233-234]); and following receiving the model updating instruction from the network ([Paragraphs 49, 82]), the method further comprises: switching from the disconnected state to a connected state to cooperate with the network to update the locally deployed model ([Paragraphs 155, 234]); and resuming the disconnected state after update for the locally deployed model is completed ([Paragraphs 366]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Lloyd) by updating the system based on threshold (as taught by Jung) by updating the system based on expiration time (as taught by Searle) for the purpose of securely delivering structured data (Searle – Paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Lloyd and Jung teaches all the limitations recited in claim 8.
However, the combination of Lloyd and Jung does not explicitly mention: wherein the model updating instruction is carried by paging information or system information based on being in a disconnected state; and following receiving the model updating instruction from the network, the method further comprises: switching from the disconnected state to a connected state to cooperate with the network to update the locally deployed model; and resuming the disconnected state after update for the locally deployed model is completed.
Searle2 teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein the model updating instruction is carried by paging information or system information based on being in a disconnected state ([Paragraphs 233-234]); and following receiving the model updating instruction from the network ([Paragraphs 49, 82]), the method further comprises: switching from the disconnected state to a connected state to cooperate with the network to update the locally deployed model ([Paragraphs 155, 234]); and resuming the disconnected state after update for the locally deployed model is completed ([Paragraphs 366]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Lloyd) by updating the system based on threshold (as taught by Jung) by updating the system based on expiration time (as taught by Searle) for the purpose of securely delivering structured data (Searle – Paragraph 49).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5708. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm.
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 5712723044. 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.
January 20, 2026
/FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights