DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed November 6, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 have been amended.
Claims 3, 12, and 17 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are currently pending.
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 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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VEIJALAINEN et al. (hereinafter Veijalainen) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2023/0345271 A1) in view of Soldati et al. (hereinafter Soldati) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2023/0276264 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Veijalainen teaches and discloses a communication system (system, figure 9), comprising:
a first communication apparatus (network node of cell 1, figure 9) is configured to: send first-part information of a first model (a first part of the ML model representing the first cell) to a terminal (mobile terminal/UE, figures 2 and 9) that is in a first cell (cell 1, figure 9), wherein the first model is an artificial intelligence (AI) model (ML model) and is used by the terminal to process data, the second-part information (a second part of the ML model representing the second cell) is information to be sent to the terminal by the second communication apparatus (network node of cell 2, figure 9) in response to the terminal being located in a second cell (cell 2, figure 9), and the first cell is different from the second cell (figure 9; cell 1 is different from cell 2); and
the second communication apparatus is configured to: send the second-part information to the terminal based on the first indication information ([0019]; [0139]; teaches a first network node of a first cell send a first part of a ML model to a mobile terminal/UE and a second part of the ML model is transmitted to the mobile terminal/UE by a second network node of a second cell which is different from the first cell).
However, Veijalainen may not explicitly disclose sending first indication information to a second communication apparatus, the first indication information indicates second-part information of the first model, wherein the second-part information is remaining information of the first model other than the first-part information of the first model; and the second communication apparatus receiving the first indication information, wherein: the first indication information indicates an end location of the first-part information in information about the first model; the first indication information indicates a start location of the second-part information in the information about the first model; or the first indication information comprises the second-part information.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Soldati teaches and suggests sending first indication information (request; [0033]; [0080]) to a second communication apparatus (target eNB/gNB, figure 5; second network node, figures 12, 15, and 16) ([0080]; “…the first RAN node may include in the first request a request for supplementary ML model information for an ML model…”; teaches the first RAN node sending a request to a second RAN node for supplementary information related to the ML model), the first indication information indicates second-part information of the first model (supplementary model information; [0080]), wherein the second-part information is remaining information of the first model other than the first-part information of the first model ([0033]; “…requesting the information received from the second RAN node…receiving supplementary ML model information from the second RAN node, the supplementary ML model information including a range of elements relating to the configuration and/or execution of ML models…”; [0080]; “…the first RAN node may include in the first request a request for supplementary ML model information for an ML model…”; teaches the supplementary model information is additional information for the first ML model, where the supplementary model information is a different part information of the model than the first part information of the model); and the second communication apparatus receiving the first indication information, wherein: the first indication information indicates an end location of the first-part information in information about the first model; the first indication information indicates a start location of the second-part information in the information about the first model; or the first indication information comprises the second-part information ([0033]; “…requesting the information received from the second RAN node…receiving supplementary ML model information from the second RAN node, the supplementary ML model information including a range of elements relating to the configuration and/or execution of ML models…”; [0080]; “…the first RAN node may include in the first request a request for supplementary ML model information for an ML model…”; teaches the second node receives the request and the request identifies and includes the supplementary model information that is being requested).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate first RAN node sending a request to a second RAN node for supplementary information related to the ML model as taught by Soldati with the method and apparatus for communicating a ML model as disclosed by Veijalainen for the purpose of integrating the use of ML models for RAN operational procedures, as suggested by Soldati.
Regarding claim 2, Veijalainen, as modified by Soldati, further teaches and suggests wherein: the first communication apparatus is a first access network device or a first radio control apparatus (network node of cell 1, figure 9); and the second communication apparatus is a second access network device or a second radio control apparatus (network node of cell 2, figure 9) (figure 9).
Regarding claim 4, Veijalainen discloses the method and apparatus for communicating a ML model, but may not explicitly disclose wherein a radio control apparatus corresponding to the first cell is the same as that corresponding to the second cell, and wherein: the first indication information indicates identification information of the terminal; the first indication information indicates identification information of the terminal and a start location of fourth-part information in third-part information, wherein the third-part information is information obtained from the radio control apparatus, and the fourth-part information is information that is not sent to the terminal and that is in the third-part information; or the first indication information indicates identification information of the terminal and an end location of the first-part information in the third-part information, wherein the third-part information is information obtained from the radio control apparatus.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Soldati teaches and suggests wherein a radio control apparatus corresponding to the first cell is the same as that corresponding to the second cell, and wherein: the first indication information indicates identification information of the terminal; the first indication information indicates identification information of the terminal and a start location of fourth-part information in third-part information, wherein the third-part information is information obtained from the radio control apparatus, and the fourth-part information is information that is not sent to the terminal and that is in the third-part information; or the first indication information indicates identification information of the terminal and an end location of the first-part information in the third-part information, wherein the third-part information is information obtained from the radio control apparatus ([0080]; [0091]; [0092]; teaches the first indication information, such as the request, indicates identification of the UE and part of the ML model).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first indication information, such as the handover request, indicates identification of the UE and part of the ML model as taught by Soldati with the method and apparatus for communicating a ML model as disclosed by Veijalainen, as modified by Soldati, for the purpose of integrating the use of ML models for RAN operational procedures, as suggested by Soldati.
Regarding claim 5, Veijalainen, as modified by Soldati, further teaches and suggests wherein the first cell corresponds to a first radio control apparatus (network node of cell 1, figure 9), the second cell corresponds to a second radio control apparatus (network node of cell 2, figure 9), and the first radio control apparatus is different from the second radio control apparatus ([0019]; figure 9; teaches a network node of cell 1 and a network node of cell 2, which is different from the network node of cell 1).
Regarding claim 6, Veijalainen discloses the method and apparatus for communicating a ML model, but may not explicitly disclose wherein: the first indication information comprises the second-part information; the first indication information indicates a start location of the second-part information in information about the first model; the first indication information indicates an end location of the first-part information in the information about the first model; or the first indication information comprises fourth-part information and an end location of third-part information in information about the first model, the fourth-part information is information that is not sent to the terminal and that is in the third-part information, and the third-part information is part information of the first model and obtained from the first radio control apparatus.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Soldati teaches and suggests wherein: the first indication information comprises the second-part information; the first indication information indicates a start location of the second-part information in information about the first model; the first indication information indicates an end location of the first-part information in the information about the first model; or the first indication information comprises fourth-part information and an end location of third-part information in information about the first model, the fourth-part information is information that is not sent to the terminal and that is in the third-part information, and the third-part information is part information of the first model and obtained from the first radio control apparatus ([0080]; [0091]; [0092]; teaches the first indication information, such as the request, indicates identification of the UE and identifies and includes the supplementary model information that is being requested).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first indication information, such as the handover request, indicates identification of the UE and part of the ML model as taught by Soldati with the method and apparatus for communicating a ML model as disclosed by Veijalainen, as modified by Soldati, for the purpose of integrating the use of ML models for RAN operational procedures, as suggested by Soldati.
Regarding claim 8, Veijalainen, as modified by Soldati, further teaches and suggests wherein the first communication apparatus is further configured to: receive second indication information from the terminal, wherein the second indication information indicates information successfully received by the terminal or information not successfully received by the terminal ([0057]; [00139]; teaches feedback from the UE indicating a successful handover).
Regarding claim 9, Veijalainen discloses the method and apparatus for communicating a ML model, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the first communication apparatus is configured to: send a first indication message to the radio control apparatus, wherein the first indication message indicates the terminal to move from the first cell to the second cell; and receive a first end indication from the radio control apparatus, wherein the first end indication indicates the first radio control apparatus to no longer send information exchanged between the first radio control apparatus and the terminal to a first access network device.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Soldati teaches and suggests wherein the first communication apparatus is configured to: send a first indication message to the radio control apparatus, wherein the first indication message indicates the terminal to move from the first cell to the second cell; and receive a first end indication from the radio control apparatus, wherein the first end indication indicates the first radio control apparatus to no longer send information exchanged between the first radio control apparatus and the terminal to a first access network device ([0080]; [0081]; teaches the target eNB/gNB receives a handover request sent from a first eNB/gNB indicating the UE to move from one cell to another).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the target eNB/gNB receives a handover request sent from a first eNB/gNB indicating the UE to move from one cell to another as taught by Soldati with the method and apparatus for communicating a ML model as disclosed by Veijalainen, as modified by Soldati, for the purpose of integrating the use of ML models for RAN operational procedures, as suggested by Soldati.
Regarding claim 10, Veijalainen, as modified by Soldati, further teaches and suggests wherein the first communication apparatus is configured to: send a second end indication to a second access network device, wherein the second end indication indicates to no longer send the information exchanged between the radio control apparatus and the terminal to the second access network device ([0019]; figure 9; teaches no longer exchanging information once a handover occurs).
Regarding claims 11 and 16, Veijalainen teaches and discloses a model configuration method for a terminal (mobile terminal/UE, figures 2 and 9) and communication apparatus (network node of cell 1, figure 9), comprising at least one processor (inherent component of the network node, figure 3) in communication with at least one memory (inherent component of the network node, figure 3) storing instructions, the at least one processor configured, upon execution of the instructions, to perform the following steps: receiving, when a terminal (mobile terminal/UE, figures 2 and 9) is in a first cell (cell 1, figure 9), first-part information of a first model (a first part of the ML model representing the first cell) from a first communication apparatus (network node of cell 1, figure 9), wherein the first model is an artificial intelligence (AI) model (ML model) and is used by the terminal to process data; and the second-part information (a second part of the ML model representing the second cell) is information to be sent to the terminal when the terminal is located in a second cell (cell 2, figure 9), and the first cell and the second cell are different cells (figure 9; cell 1 is different from cell 2) ([0019]; [0139]; teaches a first network node of a first cell send a first part of a ML model to a mobile terminal/UE and a second part of the ML model is transmitted to the mobile terminal/UE by a second network node of a second cell which is different from the first cell).
However, Veijalainen may not explicitly disclose sending first indication information to a second communication apparatus, wherein the first indication information indicates second-part information of the first model, wherein the second-part information is remaining information of the first model other than the first-part information of the first model; and the second communication apparatus receiving the first indication information, wherein: the first indication information indicates an end location of the first-part information in information about the first model; the first indication information indicates a start location of the second-part information in the information about the first model; or the first indication information comprises the second-part information.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Soldati teaches and suggests sending first indication information (request; [0033]; [0080]) to a second communication apparatus (target eNB/gNB, figure 5; second network node, figures 12, 15, and 16) ([0080]; “…the first RAN node may include in the first request a request for supplementary ML model information for an ML model…”; teaches the first RAN node sending a request to a second RAN node for supplementary information related to the ML model), wherein the first indication information indicates second-part information of the first model (supplementary model information; [0080]), wherein the second-part information is remaining information of the first model other than the first-part information of the first model ([0033]; “…requesting the information received from the second RAN node…receiving supplementary ML model information from the second RAN node, the supplementary ML model information including a range of elements relating to the configuration and/or execution of ML models…”; [0080]; “…the first RAN node may include in the first request a request for supplementary ML model information for an ML model…”; teaches the supplementary model information is additional information for the first ML model, where the supplementary model information is a different part information of the model than the first part information of the model); and the second communication apparatus receiving the first indication information, wherein: the first indication information indicates an end location of the first-part information in information about the first model; the first indication information indicates a start location of the second-part information in the information about the first model; or the first indication information comprises the second-part information ([0033]; “…requesting the information received from the second RAN node…receiving supplementary ML model information from the second RAN node, the supplementary ML model information including a range of elements relating to the configuration and/or execution of ML models…”; [0080]; “…the first RAN node may include in the first request a request for supplementary ML model information for an ML model…”; teaches the second node receives the request and the request identifies and includes the supplementary model information that is being requested).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate first RAN node sending a request to a second RAN node for supplementary information related to the ML model as taught by Soldati with the method and apparatus for communicating a ML model as disclosed by Veijalainen for the purpose of integrating the use of ML models for RAN operational procedures, as suggested by Soldati.
Regarding claims 13 and 18, Veijalainen, as modified by Soldati, further teaches and suggests sending second indication information to the first communication apparatus, wherein the second indication information indicates information successfully received by the terminal or information not successfully received by the terminal ([0057]; [00139]; teaches feedback from the UE indicating a successful handover).
Regarding claims 14 and 19, Veijalainen, as modified by Soldati, further teaches and suggests wherein: the first communication apparatus is a first access network device or a first radio control apparatus (network node of cell 1, figure 9); and the second communication apparatus is a second access network device or a second radio control apparatus (network node of cell 2, figure 9) (figure 9).
Regarding claims 15 and 20, Veijalainen, as modified by Soldati, further teaches and suggests wherein the first cell corresponds to a first radio control apparatus (network node of cell 1, figure 9), the second cell corresponds to a second radio control apparatus (network node of cell 2, figure 9), and the first radio control apparatus is different from the second radio control apparatus ([0019]; figure 9; teaches a network node of cell 1 and a network node of cell 2, which is different from the network node of cell 1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VEIJALAINEN et al. (hereinafter Veijalainen) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2023/0345271 A1) in view of Soldati et al. (hereinafter Soldati) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2023/0276264 A1), and further in view of JE et al. (hereinafter Je) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2023/0014613 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Veijalainen, as modified by Soldati, discloses the method and apparatus for communicating a ML model, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the first communication apparatus is further configured to: send packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) sequence number information corresponding to the second-part information to a second access network device.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Je teaches and suggests wherein the first communication apparatus is further configured to: send packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) sequence number information corresponding to the second-part information to a second access network device ([0078]; [0082]; [0126]; teaches sending PDCP sequence number information to a target BS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate sending PDCP sequence number information to a target BS as taught by Je with the method and apparatus for communicating a ML model as disclosed by Veijalainen, as modified by Soldati, for the purpose of optimizing a handover procedure, as suggested by Je.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 6, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Consider claim 1, Applicant argues, on pages 12-14 of the Remarks, that Veijalainen and Soldati, fail to teach or suggest a first communication apparatus is configured to: send first-part information of a first model to a terminal, wherein the second-part information is remaining information of the first model other than the first-part information of the first model; and the second communication apparatus is configured to receive the first indication information and send the second-part information to the terminal, wherein: the first indication information indicates an end location of the first-part information in information about the first model; the first indication information indicates a start location of the second-part information in the information about the first model; or the first indication information comprises the second-part information.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's argument because as recited in the above rejections, Veijalainen, as modified by Soldati, does teach and suggest the claimed limitations.
Veijalainen is relied upon and clearly teaches and depicts a first network node of the first cell sends a first part of the ML model representing the first cell to a mobile terminal/UE and a second part of the ML model representing the second cell is transmitted to the mobile terminal/UE by a second network node of a second cell which is different from the first cell (figure 9; [0019]).
PNG
media_image1.png
275
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant specifically argues that Soldati does not teach the claimed limitation in relation to paragraphs [0083]-[0086]. However, despite Applicant’s arguments, Soldati is relied upon and clearly teaches a first RAN node sending a request (analogous to the claimed first indication information) to a second RAN node for supplementary model information (analogous to the claimed second-part information) related to the ML model, where the supplementary model information is additional information for the first ML model and the supplementary model information is a different part information of the model than the first part information of the model based on paragraphs [0033] and [0080] (“…requesting the information received from the second RAN node…receiving supplementary ML model information from the second RAN node, the supplementary ML model information including a range of elements relating to the configuration and/or execution of ML models…”; “…the first RAN node may include in the first request a request for supplementary ML model information for an ML model…”). Soldati further teaches the second node receives the request and the request identifies and includes the supplementary model information that is being requested (“…the first RAN node may include in the first request a request for supplementary ML model information for an ML model…”).
Therefore, despite Applicant’s arguments and based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, it is the combination of the teachings in Veijalainen and Soldati that teaches and suggests a first communication apparatus is configured to: send first-part information of a first model to a terminal, wherein the second-part information is remaining information of the first model other than the first-part information of the first model; and the second communication apparatus is configured to receive the first indication information and send the second-part information to the terminal, wherein: the first indication information indicates an end location of the first-part information in information about the first model; the first indication information indicates a start location of the second-part information in the information about the first model; or the first indication information comprises the second-part information.
In response to Applicant's arguments, it is noted that, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
It is also noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicants are reminded that claims subject to examination will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As a matter of fact, the "examiner has the duty of police claim language by giving it the broadest reasonable interpretation." Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Industries, L.P., 65 USPQ2d 1862, 1830, (Fed. Cir. 2003). Applicants are also reminded that claimed subject matter not the specification, is the measure of the invention. Disclosure contained in the specification cannot be read into the claims for the purpose of avoiding the prior art. In re Sporck, 55 CCPA 743, 386 F.2d, 155 USPQ 687 (1986).
For independent claims 11 and 16, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's argument for at least the same reasons as disclosed above with respect to claim 1.
For dependent claims 2, 4-10, 13-15, 18-20, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's argument for at least the same reasons as disclosed above with respect to claims 1, 11, and 16, respectively.
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 extension fee 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUK JIN KANG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1771. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-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, Chirag Shah can be reached on (571) 272-3144. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Suk Jin Kang/
Examiner, Art Unit 2477
February 3, 2026
/CHIRAG G SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2477