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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 received on 2/21/2024 have been examined, of which claims 1, 14, 16 are independent.
Examiner’s Note for claim interpretation
The examiner notes that independent claims 1, 14, 16 and dependent claims, recite terms with parentheses, e.g. model(s), identifier(s), RB(s). The terms in the parentheses are not given patentable weight. Thus, in broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims terms are interpreted as (singular or one) model, identifier, RB. If the applicant intends to recite limitations to include singular and plural, the examiner suggests to amend the limitations as “at least one model”, “at least one identifier” and “at least one RB” respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “the configuration of the RB(s)”, preceded by two recitations of “at least one RB” in claim 2. It is unclear which recitation is further limited. Further, as indicated above, in broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation is interpreted as “the configuration of the RB”. In the instant of at least one RB is more than one, it is unclear which of the multiple RBs is further limited. The examiner suggests to amend the second recitation of “at least one RB” in claim 2 and “the RB(s)” in claim 3 to “the at least one RB”. Dependent claims are rejected for same reasons.
Claim 4 recites “the model data adaptation layer”, “the SDAP layer” and “the PDCP layer”, which are preceded by two recitations each of “a model data adaptation layer”, “a SDAP layer” and “a PDCP layer”. It is unclear which of the two limitations is further limited. Dependent claims are rejected for same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Belghoul et al. (US 20190132708).
Regarding claim 1, Belghoul teaches a model transmission method, applied to a terminal device (fig 9 illustrates method for UE to participate in intelligent eMBMS) and comprising:
receiving, from a network device, model transmission control information for configuring resources (902, fig 9; para 105: at 902, the UE may receive a list of data packages or types of data packages available for eMBMS; para 113: the received list of data packages may further contain timing information associated with each data package on the list of data packages, and the UE may determine when to receive the one or more data packages based on the timing information; here, timing is resource for transmission) for transmission of model(s) (abstract: the one or more data packages may comprise an updated machine learning model in a distributed learning application); and
receiving, based on the model transmission control information, the model(s) from the network device (908, fig 9; para 113: at 908, the UE may receive at least one of the one or more data packages through eMBMS; para 113: the UE may determine when to receive the one or more data packages based on the timing information; here, timing is resource for transmission).
Regarding claim 14, Belghoul teaches a terminal device (UE 106, fig 4), comprising:
a transceiver (radio 330, fig 4);
a processor (processor 302, fig 4); and
a memory (memory 306, fig 4) storing computer executable instructions that, when executed by the processor (para 65: the processor 302 of the UE device 106 may be configured to implement part or all of the methods described herein, e.g., by executing program instructions stored on a memory medium), cause the processor to (fig 9 illustrates method for UE to participate in intelligent eMBMS):
receive, from a network device through the transceiver, model transmission control information for configuring resources (902, fig 9; para 105: at 902, the UE may receive a list of data packages or types of data packages available for eMBMS; para 113: the received list of data packages may further contain timing information associated with each data package on the list of data packages, and the UE may determine when to receive the one or more data packages based on the timing information; here, timing is resource for transmission) for transmission of model(s) (abstract: the one or more data packages may comprise an updated machine learning model in a distributed learning application); and
receive, based on the model transmission control information, the model(s) from the network device through the transceiver (908, fig 9; para 113: at 908, the UE may receive at least one of the one or more data packages through eMBMS; para 113: the UE may determine when to receive the one or more data packages based on the timing information; here, timing is resource for transmission).
Regarding claim 16, Belghoul teaches a network device (network controller NC 108, fig 5), comprising:
a transceiver (network port 470, fig 5);
a processor (processor 404, fig 5); and
a memory (memory 460, fig 5) storing computer executable instructions that, when executed by the processor (para 68: the processor 404 of the network controller may be configured to implement part or all of the methods described herein, e.g., by executing program instructions stored on a memory medium), cause the processor (fig. 8 illustrates a method for a network controller to intelligently direct eMBMS communications) to:
send, to a terminal device through the transceiver, model transmission control information for configuring resources (808, fig 8; para 103: the network controller may provide, to a multicast gateway, an indication of the selected one or more broadcast regions and their respective one or more data packages, the indication may further contain timing information regarding when to perform the broadcasting of each selected data package in each selected broadcast region; here, timing is resource for transmission) for transmission of model(s) (abstract: the one or more data packages may comprise an updated machine learning model in a distributed learning application); and
send, based on the model transmission control information, the model(s) to the terminal device through the transceiver (808, fig 8; para 103: the network controller may provide, to a multicast gateway, an indication of the selected one or more broadcast regions and their respective one or more data packages, the indication may further contain timing information regarding when to perform the broadcasting of each selected data package in each selected broadcast region, the timing information may be preconfigured between the network controller and the plurality of UEs, so that the UEs may be informed of when to monitor for potential eMBMS data packages).
Regarding claim 2 and 17, Belghoul further teaches wherein the model transmission control information comprises model type identifier(s) (para 105: at 902, the UE may receive a list of data packages or types of data packages available for eMBMS).
Regarding claim 15, Belghoul further teaches to: receive, through the transceiver, a model update message from the network device, wherein the model update message indicates a predefined part that is required to be updated in the model(s) (para 114: scheduled OS security updates, carrier bundles, and/or new OS versions updates may be potential data packages for eMBMS, a updates for a particular application that is known by the network to be downloaded on a large number of UEs in a particular broadcast region may be potential data packages for eMBMS).
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 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.
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.
Claims 3-5, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belghoul et al. (US 20190132708) in view of Liu et al. (US 20190320362)
Regarding claim 3 and 18, Belghoul teaches the limitations of the parent claim. Belghoul teaches the transmission of updated machine learning model packets, and resource configuration, but does not teach the radio bearer configuration. Liu is directed to QoS remapping utilizing SDAP layer.
Liu further teaches wherein the configuration of the RB(s) associated with the transmission of the model(s) (fig 10; para 109: at block 1004, the scheduled entity may generate an SDAP control PDU in response to the mapping reconfiguration to indicate that a final SDAP data PDU associated with the first QoS flow has been transmitted on the first DRB; fig 5 shows service data flow (SDF) mapped to QoS Flow; here, QoS flow belongs to SDF, thus considered for transmission of model (service)) comprises at least one of: RB identifier(s) (para 109: the first DRB) or configuration related to a service data adaptation protocol SDAP layer associated with the RB(s) (fig 10; para 109: at block 1004, the scheduled entity may generate an SDAP control PDU in response to the mapping reconfiguration to indicate that a final SDAP data PDU associated with the first QoS flow has been transmitted on the first DRB). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the transmission of updated machine learning model packets as taught by Belghoul with configuration of QoS flow with SDAP PDU transmission on DRB as taught by Liu for the benefit of enabling the network to meet specific performance parameters of reliability and target delay as taught by Liu in para 3.
Regarding claim 4 and 19, Belghoul fails to teach, but Liu further teaches wherein the model data adaptation protocol layer belongs to the SDAP layer (para 56: the SDAP layer 316 provides a mapping between a 5G core (5 GC) quality of service (QoS) flow and a data radio bearer and performs QoS flow ID marking in both downlink and uplink packets). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the transmission of updated machine learning model packets as taught by Belghoul with configuration of QoS flow with SDAP PDU transmission on DRB as taught by Liu for the benefit of enabling the network to meet specific performance parameters of reliability and target delay as taught by Liu in para 3.
Regarding claim 5 and 20, Belghoul fails to teach, but Liu further teaches wherein the configuration related to the model data adaptation protocol layer comprises at least one of: information of model type identifier(s) associated with the RB(s) (para 64: the QoS flow to DRB mapping by NB 408 is based on the QFI and the associated QoS profiles (i.e. QoS parameters and QoS characteristics)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the transmission of updated machine learning model packets as taught by Belghoul with configuration of QoS flow with SDAP PDU transmission on DRB as taught by Liu for the benefit of enabling the network to meet specific performance parameters of reliability and target delay as taught by Liu in para 3.
Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belghoul et al. (US 20190132708) in view of Agiwal et al. (US 20180083688)
Regarding claim 13, Belghoul teaches the limitations of the parent claim. Belghoul teaches the transmission of updated machine learning model packets, and resource configuration, but does not teach security configuration. Agiwal is directed to user plane operations including PDCP reestablishment and security key update (abstract).
Agiwal further teaches wherein the security configuration related to the transmission of the model(s) comprises at least one of: configuration of a security algorithm of the transmission of the model(s) (para 132: transmitting the signaling message including the control information to the UE 102. The control information includes one of the PDCP re-establish indication and the security key change indication in response to the anchor point in the network for the PDCP entity associated with at least one data radio bearer established for the UE 102 is changed). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the transmission of updated machine learning model packets as taught by Belghoul with security key change indication for PDCP re-establishment on DRB as taught by Agiwal for the benefit of managing a user plane operation in a wireless communication system as taught by Agiwal in para 22.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RINA C PANCHOLI whose telephone number is (571)272-2679. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
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 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.
/RINA C PANCHOLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477 3/29/2026