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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 30 December 2025, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1-20 are amended and currently pending.
The outstanding objections to Claims 3, 5, 8, 10, 13 and 18 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claims.
The outstanding rejections of Claims 1-13, 15-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to at least Claims 1, 6, 11 and 16.
The indicated allowability of claims 14 and 19 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 11 and 16. Rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are included below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Taking independent Claim 1 as an example, the claim recites both (emphasis added by the Office) “identifying whether a first AI model mapped with the media data stream among the list of the AI models is stored in the UE, wherein the first AI model is a partial AI model for the media data stream” and “wherein the second AI model is a partial AI model for the media data stream”. Claims 6, 11 and 16 recite similar language. However, the language pertaining to the first AI model, specifically a determination of whether the first AI model is stored in the UE and that “the first AI model is a partial AI model for the media data stream,” is not supported by Applicant’s disclosure, as originally filed, and constitutes new matter. Turning to Applicant’s specification, page 13 at lines 14-24 recite the following (emphasis added by the Office):
“FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating a user plane flow for an AI based real-time/conversational service between two UEs with an MRF, according to an embodiment. Real-time audio and video data are exchanged between the two UEs, via the MRF, which can perform any necessary media processing for the media data. When AI is introduced to the conversational service (e.g., when the conversational video received needs to be processed using an AI model on the UE, like processing to create and avatar, or to recreate a 3D point cloud), the MRF also delivers the necessary AI model(s) needed by the UEs for the corresponding service. AI inferencing (e.g., for media processing) can also be split between the UE and MRF, in which case the intermediate data from the output of the inferencing at the MRF also needs to be delivered to the UE, to be used as the input to the inferencing at the UE. For this split inference case, the AI model delivered from the MRF to the UE is typically a split partial AI model.”
This portion of the specification shows that AI inferencing can be split between the UE and MRF, and that the MRF delivers a split partial AI model to the UE (corresponding to the “second AI model is a partial AI model for the media data stream” language). However, this portion of the specification does not indicate that the list of AI models stored on the UE includes a partial AI model.
Further, as shown in Figure 14 and pages 27-28 of the specification (replicated below with emphasis added by the Office), the SDP response does not “indicate the first AI model as a response to the SDP offer” in response to the first AI model being stored in the UE.
“At step 1413, the UE 1401 may identify at least one AI model for outputting at least one result using the first media data from the list, based on the type of the first media data and the media service in which the at least one result is used.
At step 1415, the UE 1401 may transmit, to the MRF 1402, SDP response as a response to the SDP offer. For example, the SDP response may be for requesting the at least one AI model. As another example, the MRF 1402 may receive the SDP response for requesting the at least one AI model from the UE 1401.”
As shown above, the SDP response sent by the UE requests the AI model “based on the type of the first media data and the media service in which the at least one result used”, not a determination that the AI model is stored on the UE.
Claims 6, 11 and 16 recite similar language to Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1. Claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15 and 17-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency on the independent claims listed above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Taking independent Claim 1 as an example, the claim recites both (emphasis added by the Office) “wherein the first AI model is a partial AI model for the media data stream” and “wherein the second AI model is a partial AI model for the media data stream”. Claims 6, 11 and 16 recite similar language. However, it is not clear whether the two partial AI models are the same partial AI model or separate partial AI models.
Claims 6, 11 and 16 recite similar language to Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1. Claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15 and 17-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency on the independent claims listed above.
Conclusion
The Office notes that Applicant was contacted on 15 January 2026 to discuss the rejections detailed herein; however, no response was received.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Fu et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0403684) discloses federated learning for AI models in a telecommunications network comprising SIP phones (paragraphs 0021 and 0031).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472