DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is responsive to the communication(s) filed on. Claims 1-20, of which claims 1, 10, and 17 are independent, were pending in this application and are considered below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of the Applicant's claim for foreign priority filed in X on X under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited on the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/24/2025 have been considered and made of record by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 USC § 35 USC § 112, second paragraph
Examiner Note: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ) made technical changes to 35 U.S.C. § 112 that only apply to patent applications filed on or after on September 16, 2012.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 17, claims recites the limitations “there is a switching Gap in switching between a first AI model and a second AI model” (line 6 of claim 1; line 7 claim 17) and “the configuration information of the switching Gap” (line 3 of claim 10), which term “switching gap” makes it vague and indefinite. It is not clear what term “switching gap” is referring, because it has no commonly accepted definition. The aforesaid issues leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim indefinite.
Examiner note – For the purpose of art rejection, the term “switching gap” is interpreted as --a downtime when the first Al model is replaced by the second Al model--.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, claims recite the limitations “stopping using an AI arithmetic unit” (lines 6 and 15 of claim 1; lines 11 and 16 of claim 17), which is vague and indefinite, because the term “stopping” suggests that the AI arithmetic unit must have been in use earlier, which is missing from the claim. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the aforesaid AI arithmetic unit is associated with the first AI model, or the second AI model, or both AI models, or none of them.
Claims also recite the step of “performing calculation of the first AI model … a calculation result being inapplicable or invalid” (lines 6 and 15 of claim 1; lines 11 and 16 of claim 17), which is vague and indefinite, because the claims earlier recites the step of “performing calculation of the first AI model, a calculation result being applicable or valid”.
Claim further recite the step of “performing calculation of the first AI model and/or the second AI model, a calculation result being inapplicable or invalid” (line 13 of claim 1; line 14 of claim 17), which term “a calculation result being inapplicable or invalid” makes it vague and indefinite. It is not clear whether the term “a calculation result” is referring to the calculation of the first AI model, or the calculation of the second AI model, or the calculation of both AI models. The aforesaid issues leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim indefinite. It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --Y--.
Regarding claims 2-5, 7-9, 14, and 16-19, claims recites the limitations “switching gap” (multiple occurrence), which term “switching gap” makes it vague and indefinite. It is not clear what term “switching gap” is referring, because it has no commonly accepted definition. The aforesaid issues leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim indefinite.
Examiner note – For the purpose of art rejection, the term “switching gap” is interpreted as --a downtime when the first Al model is replaced by the second Al model--.
Regarding claims 2, 13 and 18, claims recite the limitation “performing calculation by using the second AI model behind X1 time units” (line 14 of claim 2; line 6 of claim 13; line 15 of claim 18), which term “calculation … behind X1 time units” makes it vague and indefinite. It is not clear what term “calculation … behind X1 time units” is referring to.
Claim also recites the limitation “performing calculation by using the second AI model upon receiving X2 time units of the confirmation information” (line 18 of claim 2), which term “X2 time units of the confirmation information” makes it vague and indefinite. It is not clear what term “X2 time units of the confirmation information” is referring to. The aforesaid issues leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 3, claim recites the limitation “determining ... the configuration information of the switching Gap ... comprises ... whether there is the switching Gap” (lines 1-10 of claim 3), which is vague and indefinite, because it is not clear if and when “there is no switching gap”, then what said “configuration information” would be for, which leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 4, the term “preengagement” (lines 15 and 18 of claim 4) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preengagement” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the steps of “determining, by the first communication device, the used configuration information of the switching Gap according to a preengagement” (line 14 of claim 4) and “determining, by the first communication device, a plurality of pieces of configuration information of the switching Gap according to the preengagement” (line 17 of claim 4) are vague and indefinite.
Regarding claims 5-6, claims recite the limitations “the first information” and “the switching Gap” (line 5 of claim 5; lines 15-16, 19 and 21 of claim 6; ). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, claim recites the step of “periodically sending, by the first communication device, the first information to the second communication device” (line 21 of claim 6), which is vague and indefinite, because it is not clear what the purpose of exchange of the first information between the first and the second communication device is.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, claims recite the limitations “the capability” and “the resource” (line 1 of claim 6; line 5 of claim 15), which is vague and indefinite, because it is not clear what the terms are referring to the limitations “a total capability” and “a total resource” (lines 9 of claim 5; line 8 of claim 14), or to the limitations “a surplus capability” and “a surplus resource” (lines 11 of claim 5; line 10 of claim 14), which leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, claims recite the limitations “the start time of the switching Gap” (lines 1, 28, and 32 of claim 9; lines 13, 40, and 44 of claim 16) and “the end time of the switching Gap” (line 26 of claim 9). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim also recites the limitations “X3th … X14th” (line 5-23 of claim 9), which are ordinal numbers. However, claim later recite “X3-X14 are all greater than or equal to 1”, i.e., defines the values X3 to X14 as cardinal number, which are the same as cardinal numbers X1 and X2 recited in claim 2. This inconsistency leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 10, claim recites the limitations “the configuration information” and “the switching Gap” (line 3 of claim 10). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, claim recites the limitations “stopping, by the first communication device, using the AI arithmetic unit” (line 5 of claim 11), which is vague and indefinite, because the term “stopping” suggests that the AI arithmetic unit must have been in use earlier, which is missing from the claim. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the aforesaid AI arithmetic unit is associated with the first AI model, or the second AI model, or both AI models, or none of them.
Claim also recites the step of “calculating … the first AI model … a calculation result being inapplicable or invalid” (lines 8 of claim 17), which is vague and indefinite, because the claims earlier recites the step of “calculating … the first AI model, a calculation result being applicable or valid”, which contradict it. The aforesaid issues leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, claims are rejected due to their dependency to the rejected claims 1, 10, and 17, correspondingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(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.
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628,631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See also MPEP § 2131.02. "The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the … claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that, in some circumstances, it is permissible to use multiple references in a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection. See MPEP § 2131.01. ("(A) Prove a primary reference contains an "enabled disclosure;" (B) Explain the meaning of a term used in the primary reference; or (C) Show that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent.").
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021 /117859 A1 to Rogers et al.
Regarding claim 1, Rogers et al. disclose an Artificial Intelligence (AI) model switching processing method (¶[0006]: “FIG. 3 illustrates an example process for updating a machine learning model”; Fig. 3), comprising: receiving, by a first communication device, switching indication information sent by a second communication device, wherein the switching indication information is used for indicating the first communication device to perform AI model switching (¶[0036]:” During execution of the application, a second version of the machine learning model can be received 304 or otherwise obtained, from a source such as a model provider or model repository. New configuration data can be received 306, generated, or otherwise obtained that specifies use of the second version with the application.”; Fig. 3); and
in a case that there is a switching Gap in switching between a first AI model and a second AI model, executing, by the first communication device, a first operation in the switching Gap (¶[0036]: "In response, the application can be caused 308 to automatically switch to use of the second version, with little to no downtime for the inferencing application"; Figure 3), wherein the first operation comprises any one of the following:
performing calculation of the first AI model, a calculation result being applicable or valid (implicitly in ¶[0023]: “an edge manager mechanism can then be used to signal a running inference container application to switch to a different model version. Such an approach can enable a model to be updated using a live update process, for a model in a running application container, without having to tear down the container or miss any incoming data to be processed”) {the language “without having to tear down the container or miss any incoming data” suggests that while a transition from a first model to a second one takes place, operations under the first model continue being executed while still being reliable };
Regarding claim 17, Rogers et al. disclose a first communication device, comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing programs or instructions runnable on the processor, wherein the programs or the instructions, when executed by the processor, implement the following steps (¶[0151]: “a set of one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media having stored thereon executable instructions … that, when executed … by one or more processors of a computer system, cause computer system to perform operations described herein. ”):
receiving switching indication information sent by a second communication device, wherein the switching indication information is used for indicating the first communication device to perform AI model switching (¶[0036]:” During execution of the application, a second version of the machine learning model can be received 304 or otherwise obtained, from a source such as a model provider or model repository. New configuration data can be received 306, generated, or otherwise obtained that specifies use of the second version with the application.”; Fig. 3); and
in a case that there is a switching Gap in switching between a first AI model and a second AI model, executing a first operation in the switching Gap (¶[0036]: "In response, the application can be caused 308 to automatically switch to use of the second version, with little to no downtime for the inferencing application"; Figure 3),, wherein the first operation comprises any one of the following:
performing calculation of the first AI model, a calculation result being applicable or valid (implicitly in ¶[0023]: “an edge manager mechanism can then be used to signal a running inference container application to switch to a different model version. Such an approach can enable a model to be updated using a live update process, for a model in a running application container, without having to tear down the container or miss any incoming data to be processed”) {the language “without having to tear down the container or miss any incoming data” suggests that while a transition from a first model to a second one takes place, operations under the first model continue being executed while still being reliable };;
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-16 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
Claim 2-9 and 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
As applied to the claims above, the specific columns, line numbers, and figures in the references has been cited for the Applicant’s convenience. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the particular limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures may apply as well. The Applicant is respectfully requested to fully consider the references, in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner, in preparing responses. Applicant(s) are reminded that MPEP 2123 I. states: “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
The attention of the applicant is drawn to the fact that the application may not be amended in such a way that it contains subject matter which extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed. In order to facilitate the examination of the conformity of the amended application, the applicant is respectfully requested to clearly identify the amendments carried out, irrespective of whether they concern amendments by addition, replacement or deletion, and to indicate the passages of the application as filed on which these amendments are based.
Reliance on the US Pre-Grant Publication (PG PUB) of this application, which is not part of the image file wrapper of the patent application, in the prosecution is improper. All references in the reply to the office action are to be made to the latest version on record of the patent application as filed not as published. The latest version on record of the patent application means the patent application as originally filed and modified by previously entered amendment(s).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Ren et al. (US 2024/0267710 A1) disclose an Artificial Intelligence (AI) model switching processing method (Fig. 5A), comprising: receiving, by a first communication device (Fig. 5A: “UE 120”), switching indication information (Fig. 5A: “Transmit indication 505”) sent by a second communication device (Fig. 5A: “BS 110), wherein the switching indication information is used for indicating the first communication device to perform AI model switching (¶[00789]: “ As shown by reference number 505, the base station 110 (or another device) may transmit the indication. The base station 110 may generate the indication based at least in part on a UE capability, traffic conditions, UE location, and/or other network conditions. The indication may be transmitted in, for example, a field in DCI. The field may be an ML group switching field, and the UE 120 may use information from the RRC parameter MLGroupSwitch Trigger to identify the ML group switching field in the DCI.”).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nader Bolourchi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8064. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 to 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hannah S. Wang, SPE can be reached on (571) 272-9018. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO web-based Video Conferencing and Collaboration Tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. See MPEP § 502.03. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122 and will not initiate communications with applicants via Internet e-mail. The internet authorization must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR 1.4(c). The separate paper will facilitate processing and avoid confusion. The written authorization may be submitted via EFS-Web, mail, or fax. It cannot be submitted by email.
The following is a sample authorization form, which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
A written authorization may be withdrawn by filing a signed paper clearly identifying the original authorization. The following is a sample form which may be used by applicant to withdraw the authorization:
“The authorization given on______, to the USPTO to communicate with any practitioner of record or acting in a representative capacity in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application via video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail is hereby withdrawn.”
To facilitate processing of the internet communication authorization or withdraw of authorization, the Office strongly encourages use of Form PTO/SB/439, filed via EFS-Web. The Form is available at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA, or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Nader Bolourchi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights