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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/05/2026 is entered and acknowledged by the Examiner. Claims 1-8, 11-18 and 20 have been amended. Claims 9-10 and 19 has been cancelled. Claims 1-8, 11-18 and 20 are currently pending in the instant application.
The rejection of claims 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as allegedly being indefinite has been withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, 11 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 and 14-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, provided that all other rejections under 35 USC 101/112 (if any) are obviated upon upcoming amendments/arguments without raising new issue that necessitate further consideration/searches.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 11-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al Pub. No.: (US 2024/0314537 A1) (hereinafter “Yang”) in view of Ross et al Pat. No.: (US 6,380,804 A1) (hereinafter "Ross”).
With respect to claim 1: Yang discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station, a switching indication for switching from a source artificial intelligence (AI) model to a target (AI) model (first communication device receives AI model switching indication from a second communication device [0076-0078], [Fig. 2], wherein the second communication device is a network-side device [0085], the network side device is a base station [0074], [Fig. 1]);
determining a switching delay for the target AI model (determining a switching gap for the change of AI models [0123], [0378-0394]);
applying the target AI model based on the switching delay (first device switched from first AI model to second AI model [0078], [0211], [0050-0058]);
However, Yang does no explicitly disclose determining a switching delay based on a switching sequence;
Ross discloses determining a switching delay based on a switching sequence (The delivery of a control signal to each individual stage is delayed by a delay unit so that the modes of the stages are switched in a desired sequence [Col 2 lines 1-16], [Col 3 lines 1-7]. Therefore, a delay is determined in order for the modes of the stages witched in a desired sequence);
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 modify Yang in view of Ross in order to determining a switching delay based on a switching sequence;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide an optimized time for switching modes [Ross: Col 3 lines 1-7].
Additionally, based on the broadest reasonable of interpretation of “a switching delay for the target AI model based on a switching sequence”, examiner could have reasonably cited [0123-0130] of Yang, where the AI model Gap is determined based on the different types or structures of the AI models, such that the Gap is based on the first sequence of the first AI model being the same type as the second AI model or the second sequence of the first AI model being a different type then the second AI model. Which can be interpreted as 2 different sequences for switching.
With respect to claim 2: Yang-Ross discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Yang disclose wherein the switching indication is received at a first time, and wherein the target AI model is applied at a second time that is offset from the first time by the switching delay (determining the gap for switching from first AI model to second A model, and the duration of the switching gap along with the start and end time for switching from the first AI model to the second AI model [0123], [0378-0394]).
With respect to claim 3: Yang-Ross discloses the method of claim 2 as set forth above, further comprising:
Yang disclose receiving, from the base station, the switching sequence for a plurality of AI models including the source AI model and the target AI model (determining whether there is a switch gap between the first AI model and the second AI model and the contents of the first AI model and the second AI model, along with the configurations of the AI models to determine the sequence of when the switch should be done [0094-0109], [0121-0129]).
With respect to claims 11-13, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 1-3, respectively. Therefore claims 11-13 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1-3.
With respect to claim 20, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 1, respectively. Therefore claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO DUC DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2350. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952. 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.
/T. D./
Examiner, Art Unit 2446
/MICHAEL A KELLER/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights