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 .
This Final rejection is in response to the amendment filed on 12/31/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and are currently amended. Claims 1, 14, and 20 are independent claims.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: claim 1 recites sending by a first device, a first information of an AI model to a second device and recites the first information in the alternative of several items. This recitation seems incomplete because other than this one process step of sending ‘something’ between two devices, there are no other process steps that represent the claimed invention. The content of what is sent maybe anything and would not be limiting because any content sent between two devices would suffice and be obvious to assume other labeled content in the claim recitation when no other essential details are recited. Notwithstanding the specific information sent, there are no other process steps and no other process that constitutes the claimed invention. The claim as recited is incomplete. Without other essential process steps, there is no reason to assume any limits to the scope and breadth of the recited limitations and therefore, the claimed invention as recited. Other independent claims recite the same limitations and dependent claims are recited in the same vein and are lacking essential details.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: claim 1 recites sending by a first device, a first information of an AI model to a second device and recites the first information in the alternative of several items. This recitation seems incomplete because other than this one step of sending ‘something’ between two devices. Elements like an application context and other process steps involving elements other than the two devices are missing. Without an application context and other essential elements, there is no reason to assume any limits to the scope and breadth of the recited limitations and therefore, the claimed invention as recited. Other independent claims recite the same limitations and dependent claims are recited in the same vein and are lacking essential details.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: claim 1 recites sending by a first device, a first information of an AI model to a second device and recites the first information in the alternative of several items. This recitation seems incomplete because other than this one step of sending ‘something’ between two devices. There is no application or service architecture recited in the claims other than the two non-specific devices. Claim 1 as recited omits essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. Without such details, there is no reason to assume any limits to the scope and breadth of the recited limitations and therefore, the claimed invention as recited. Other independent claims recite the same limitations and dependent claims are recited in the same vein and are lacking essential details
Claim 1 also recites limitations such as “complexity information of the AI model; and an allowed maximum complexity of the AI model on the premise of meeting requirements of a timeline.” Similar comments apply to the claim term “complexity information” and “maximum complexity” and if claim 4 is the controlling definition of the term complexity information, it is not clear what maximum complexity is. It is not clear what a timeline is in the context of maximum complexity, ‘requirements of a timeline’ to do what?
Claim1 recites the limitation “…to determine the AI model” and this limitation reads like “whereby” or “intended result” and may not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04.
Claim 4 recites “…total processings of the AI model;” and there is no such word as “processings” and it is not clear what the meaning of it is. And it is not clear what the difference between the two alternatives, processings and operations is. Claim 5 recites converting all processings of the AI model into OPs on the basis of an OP and not clear what it is referring to. Rest of the limitations in claim 5 equally do not make sense.
Claim 6 recites multiple maximum processing times among the plurality of processing times and it is not clear how there can be multiple maximum values. Similar comment for the rest of the limitations. Claim 7 recites limitations with similar semantics in the context of complexity as recited in claim 4 has clarity issues (see above) and similar issues as in claim 6. Specification simply repeats the claim language without further description or explanation.
Claim 8 recites “… the first communication device comprises a plurality of AI models belonging to different functions…” and it is not clear which of these AI models’ information is sent to the second device in claim 1.
Claim 9 recites a non-AI operation unit and it is not clear what it is and how it fits into whatever limitations that are recited in claim 1. And Claim 10 recites time elements that do not appear to be a run time which is an elapsed time of a task but reciting “a sixth time at which data is inputted” does not make sense as a run time and similar comment applies to the other limitations recited in the alternative.
Claim 12 appears to switch the roles for first and second communication devices established in claim 1 which recites that the second communication device determines the AI model based on the AI model information sent by the first communication device. Same comment for claim 13.
Claim 14 corresponds to claim 1 and all comments with respect to claim 1 apply. Claim 15 corresponds to claims 2 and 4 and all comments with respect to those claims apply. Other dependent claims 16-19 are analyzed as above with their respective corresponding claims. Claim 20 corresponds to claim 1 and all comments with respect to claim 1 apply.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ryden et al. (US 2023/0276263 A1, hereinafter Ryden).
Regarding claim 1, Ryden teaches a information transmission method, comprising:
sending, by a first communication device, first information of an artificial intelligence (AI) model to a second communication device, wherein the first information is used for the second communication device to determine the Al model, [Figure 15 and Par.[0085]], and the first information comprises at least one of the following:
processing time information of the Al model, [Par.[0085] describes information related to ML model execution time (processing time of the AI model) as too long is sent to the RAN node from a wireless device; Figure 15 shows the wireless device (first communication device) model information (first information) to RAN node to determine the model];
whether a processing time of the Al model meets a preset requirement or not, [Par.[0085] execution time too long and does not meet the preset requirement];
complexity information of the Al model, [Par.[0085] model too big meaning complexity information]; or
an allowed maximum complexity of the Al model on the premise of meeting requirements of a timeline, [Par.[0085] that the battery consumption is too high and may not meet the requirements of a timeline], and
wherein the first communication device is a network-side device, and the second communication device is a terminal, or, the first communication device is a terminal, and the second communication device is a network-side device.
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected as above.
Examiner’s Note: Independent claims are so broad and the lone process step recited in the claims amounts to some random step in a larger application where model information is sent by a first device to a second device, [see Figure 15]. The context of a larger application or other relevant elements are missing in the claims. Dependent claims are deficient also in the haphazard manner that they are presented as explained in the 112 rejection and it is not possible to provide prior art rejection without a firm understanding of the scope and breadth of these claims which are lacking.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Much of the rationale for 112 rejection from previous Non-Final rejection is maintained because the amendments do not address them adequately.
Independent claims are so broad and the lone process step recited in the claims amounts to some random step in a larger application where model information is sent by a first device to a second device, [see Figure 15 in the cited reference]. The context of a larger application or other relevant elements from the claimed invention are missing in the claims as noted in the 112 rejection. Dependent claims are deficient also in the haphazard manner they are presented as explained in the 112 rejection.
The subject matter claimed appears in numerous prior art especially in 3G and 5G implementations. However, as evidenced by the 112b rejection and the associated explanation, claims are severely lacking in essential details that would help determine the scope and breadth of the claimed invention and without such details it is impossible to apply prior art to the claim limitations. Specification is also lacking in providing the essential details such as context and process, and controlling definition for terms and simply repeats the same language present in the claims.
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 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 PADMA MUNDUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5383. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/PADMA MUNDUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
Prosecution Insights