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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 2026-08-12 is acknowledged. Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in India on 2023-04-13. However, applicant has not filed a certified copy of the India Provisional Application No. 202341027413 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2024-02-26 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Objections
For any amendment being filed in response to a restriction or election of species requirement and any subsequent amendment, any claims which are non-elected must have the status identifier (withdrawn). Any non-elected claims which are being amended must have either the status identifier (withdrawn) or (withdrawn – currently amended) and the text of the non-elected claims must be presented with markings to indicate the changes. Any non-elected claims that are being canceled must have the status identifier (canceled). Please see MPEP § 714. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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 1 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2026/0040096 to Niu et al. (“Niu”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2026/0238278 to Wei et al. (“Wei”) and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0055762 to Walker et al. (“Walker”).
As to claim 1, Niu discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one processor (Niu, Fig. 2, processor(s) 204; ¶0035); and at least one memory storing instructions (Niu, Fig. 2, memory 206 and instructions 208; ¶0036) that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: requesting, from a model repository, at least one second model for use at a second side of the two-sided model (Niu, Fig. 6 and ¶0085), wherein the at least one second model is selected based, at least partially, on the at least one first model (Niu, Figs. 3 and 4; ¶¶0052-0057, ¶0058-0066, and ¶0077. Niu discloses that a first part (e.g., decoder) a two-sided model is sent to the gNB and a second respective part (e.g., encoder) of the two-sided model is sent to the UE. Thus, the second model (request by the UE) is, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, based at least partially on the at least one first model (the model used by the gNB)); and receiving, from the model repository, the at least one second model (Niu, Fig. 6 and ¶¶0087-0090).
Niu does not disclose: entering a test mode; receiving, from a test equipment, an indication of at least one first model used at a first side of a two-sided model.
However, Wei discloses: receiving … an indication of at least one first model used at a first side of a two-sided model (Wei, Fig. 8, step S80; ¶¶0300-0302). Examiner notes that Wei additionally discloses wherein the at least one second model is selected based, at least partially, on the at least one first model (Wei, Fig. 8, steps S80-S82; ¶¶0300-0302).
Additionally, Walker discloses: entering a test mode (Walker, Figs. 1-2; ¶¶0114-0123; please also see ¶0077. A UE may be a device under test (DUT), i.e., the UE has entered a test mode); a test equipment (Walker, Figs. 1-2; ¶0094, "a model communications system (MCS) for communication of model and/or test inputs and/or training inputs to the DUT"; one of ordinary skill in the art that the MCS, which communicates "test inputs and/or training inputs to the DUT" would therefore be considered a test equipment).
Niu and Wei are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: defining and/or supporting transfer of artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) models in a wireless communication system; support and utilization of two-sided AI/ML models in a wireless communication system; and/or techniques for exchanging information between user equipments (UEs) and network entities regarding which models the UEs and network entities support. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Niu to incorporate the teachings of Wei to include: receiving … an indication of at least one first model used at a first side of a two-sided model. Doing so would improve the implementation of two-sided artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) models in wireless communication systems (Wei, ¶0071-0072), which would in turn improve beam management, CSI determination, positioning, and other aspects of a mobile telecommunications system (Wei, ¶¶0037-0038).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Niu to incorporate the teachings of Walker to include: entering a test mode and a test equipment. Doing so would allow for "on-device model training (which allows models to adapt to their observed usage context) [which] offers large performance benefits in several domains. A widely deployed application of on-device model training is federated learning, in which devices may collaborate to train part of a large model without compromising privacy by not allowing data samples to leave the device which captured it" (Walker, ¶0005).
As to claim 5, Niu in view of Wei and Walker discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: transmitting, to the model repository, a third indication of the test mode of the apparatus (Walker, Figs. 1-2, ¶0116, "The DUT 30 may signal the requirement for training (or a trained model) or testing e.g. via a training required flag (Tr-F) or testing required flag (Te-F) or the like to the network via standard communications protocols, e.g., to the RF control algorithm 202 of the model communication system").
As to claim 6, Niu in view of Wei and Walker discloses the apparatus of claim 1: wherein the model repository comprises one of: a device model repository, a network model repository, a centralized model repository, a local repository, or a remote repository (Niu, Fig. 6 and ¶0085).
As to claim 7, Niu in view of Wei and Walker discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: transmitting, to the test equipment, a fourth indication that the at least one second model has been obtained (Wei, Fig. 5, step s48 and ¶0196).
As to claim 8, Niu in view of Wei and Walker discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus comprises a user equipment or a network node (Niu, Fig. 2, UE device 202; ¶0034); and wherein entering the test mode comprises entering the test mode to test the apparatus (Walker, Figs. 1-2; ¶0115, "the DUT 30 may determine that training or testing is required").
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu in view of Wei and Walker and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0267725 to Sundararajan et al. (“Sundararajan”).
As to claim 2, Niu in view of Wei and Walker discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Niu in view of Wei and Walker does not disclose: wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: transmitting, to the test equipment, a first indication of a capability to support at least one feature with the two-sided model; and receiving, from the test equipment, a second indication that the test equipment is capable of supporting the at least one feature with the two-sided model.
However, Sundararajan discloses: wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: transmitting, to the test equipment, a first indication of a capability to support at least one feature with the two-sided model (Sundararajan, Fig. 9, step 910; ¶¶0116-0117); and receiving, from the test equipment, a second indication that the test equipment is capable of supporting the at least one feature with the two-sided model (Sundararajan, Fig. 9, step 908; ¶¶0116-0117).
Niu, Wei, Walker, and Sundararajan are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: defining and/or supporting transfer of artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) models in a wireless communication system; support and utilization of two-sided AI/ML models in a wireless communication system; and/or techniques for exchanging information between user equipments (UEs) and network entities regarding which models the UEs and network entities support. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Niu in view of Wei and Walker to incorporate the teachings of Sundararajan to include: wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: transmitting, to the test equipment, a first indication of a capability to support at least one feature with the two-sided model; and receiving, from the test equipment, a second indication that the test equipment is capable of supporting the at least one feature with the two-sided model. Doing so would allow a UE to select a model that is compatible with the network-side model, "improv[ing] the reporting of information (e.g., CSI) to network entities, which may improve communications reliability in wireless communications systems" (Sundararajan, ¶0026).
As to claim 3, Niu in view of Wei and Walker and further in view of Sundararajan discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first indication comprises at least one of: a first identifier of a model available to the apparatus, a first version of the model, a second identifier of a functionality available to the apparatus, or a second version of the functionality (Sundararajan, Fig. 9, step 910; ¶¶0116-0117; please also see ¶0025, "A UE associated with the network entity then conveys its capability in terms of which decoder IDs, network-side ML interface IDs, ML-based message format IDs, or functionality IDs the UE can work with, i.e., the decoder IDs, network-side ML interface IDs, ML-based message format IDs, or functionality IDs for which the UE has a compatible model (e.g., a compatible encoder model)").
As to claim 4, Niu in view of Wei and Walker discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Niu in view of Wei and Walker does not disclose: wherein the indication of the at least one first model comprises at least one of: an update to the at least one first model, or a third identifier of the at least one first model.
However, Sundararajan discloses: wherein the indication of the at least one first model comprises at least one of: an update to the at least one first model, or a third identifier of the at least one first model (Sundararajan, Fig. 9, step 908; ¶¶0116-0117).
Niu, Wei, Walker, and Sundararajan are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: defining and/or supporting transfer of artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) models in a wireless communication system; support and utilization of two-sided AI/ML models in a wireless communication system; and/or techniques for exchanging information between user equipments (UEs) and network entities regarding which models the UEs and network entities support. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Niu in view of Wei and Walker to incorporate the teachings of Sundararajan to include: wherein the indication of the at least one first model comprises at least one of: an update to the at least one first model, or a third identifier of the at least one first model. Doing so would allow a UE to select a model that is compatible with the network-side model, "improv[ing] the reporting of information (e.g., CSI) to network entities, which may improve communications reliability in wireless communications systems" (Sundararajan, ¶0026).
References Cited
Niu, Huaning et al. (2026). Method and apparatus for ai model definition and ai model transfer (US 2026/0040096 A1). Filed 2023-07-28.
Sundararajan, Jay Kumar et al. (2024). Decoder based life-cycle management for two-sided models (US 2024/0267725 A1). Filed 2023-11-20.
Wei, Yuxin et al. (2026). Switching to another machine learning model (US 2026/0238278 A1). Filed 2024-02-27.
Walker, Nicholas Simon et al. (2025). Testing of an on-device machine learning tool (US 2025/0055762 A1). Filed 2022-12-16.
Other Pertinent References
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Ali, Amaanat et al. (2026). Artificial intelligence/machine learning model identifier usage (US 20260230381 A1). Filed 2024-01-31.
Echigo, Haruhi et al. (2026). Terminal, radio communication method, and base station (US 20260269899 A1). Filed 2022-07-01.
Feki, Afef et al. (2026). Determining a positioning method or functionality for positioning a user equipment (US 20260270943 A1). Filed 2024-02-28.
Leng, Shiyang et al. (2024). Ai/ml model monitoring operations for nr air interface (US 20240098533 A1). Filed 2023-08-29.
Park et al. (2024). Method and apparatus for monitoring and managing performance of artificial neural network model for air interface (US 20240121633 A1). Filed 2023-09-27.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL H LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)272-5720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm (PT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please 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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (571)272-7855. 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.
/SAMUEL H. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights