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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 31, 32 are objected under minor informalities:
Claims 31, 32 recite, non-functional descriptive material limitations, “a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store instructions…” in lines 1-2.
“A non-transitory computer-readable medium” merely serves as support for data instructions, and the data instruction will not impart/convey a patentable distinction when no functional relationship exists.
In particular, a non-transitory computer readable medium cannot process data instruction alone, and require enabling a computer processor/CPU to process the data instruction in order to impart/convey a patentable distinction of a claim.
As such, the functional language, “executing/processing data instruction stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium by a CPU or a computer processor” adds functional relationship to the clamed invention.
Appropriate correction is required. (see MPEP 2111.05)
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.
Claims 4, 5, 37 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the AI session" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the AI session" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 37 recites the limitation “a session registration” which makes the claim indefinite. It’s unclear if “session registration” is performed by the AMF or the SMF. It’s also unclear if “a session registration” refers to “session context creation request”. Examiner will interpret as best understood.
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.
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 1-3, 27, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youn et al (USPN 20190364463) in view of Shan (USPN 20190222489).
Regarding claim 1, Youn discloses
a method for generating an artificial intelligence session, the method being performed by a terminal device and comprising: (method for generating a session performed by an UE [0149-0153], FIG. 8
sending an artificial intelligence (AI) session establishment request to an access and mobility management function (AMF) device (UE transmits NAS message to AMF, the message including an S-NSSAI, DNN, PDU session type and N1 SM information [0149-0153]
receiving an establishment response returned by the AMF device (receiving NAS message including from AMF in response [0177, 0182, 0186]
Youn does not expressly disclose artificial intelligence (AI) session establishment request; AI session establishment response
Shan discloses artificial intelligence (AI) session establishment request (a network data analytics function (NWDAF) may be used for data collection/analytics and utilize service-based interfaces to communicate [0021, 0022, 0029]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “artificial intelligence (AI) session establishment request” as taught by Shan into Youn’s system with the motivation to substitute UE->AMF session establishment request mechanism of Youn with known network-resident data analytics (AI type) function tied to session management taught by Shan to provide greater capabilities in wireless network to UEs.
Regarding claim 27, Youn discloses “A communication device, comprising a processor and a memory, and the processor, when executes the computer program stored in the memory, causes the device to perform the method according to claim 1” UE, FIG. 16 #100 comprising controller, FIG. 16 #120, and storage unit, FIG. 16 #101, the controller executing methods contained in storage to perform methods of claim 1 [0302-0305]
Youn does not expressly disclose “wherein the memory stores a computer program”
Shan discloses UE comprising memory containing instructions executed by processor [0020, 0092, 0093, 0116]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein the memory stores a computer program” as taught by Shan into Youn’s system with the motivation to enable a UE user to activate process described in claim 1.
Regarding claim 31, Youn discloses “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” storage unit, FIG. 16 #101
Youn does not expressly disclose “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store instructions wherein when the instructions are performed, the method according to claims 1 is implemented”
Shan discloses UE comprising memory containing instructions executed by processor [0020, 0092, 0093, 0116]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store instructions wherein when the instructions are performed, the method according to claims 1 is implemented” as taught by Shan into Youn’s system with the motivation to enable a UE user to activate process described in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Youn discloses “wherein session establishment request comprises at least one of the following information: AI attribute information” request includes an S-NSSAI and a DNN, function as an attribute type
Youn does not expressly disclose “the AI session establishment request comprises at least one of the following information: AI attribute information”
Shan discloses AF-service identifier may be used to identify traffic association with PDU session, AF-service identifier may be an identifier of the service whose request is issued by the AF [0038, 0043]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “the AI session establishment request comprises at least one of the following information: AI attribute information” as taught by Shan into Youn’s system with the motivation to substitute UE->AMF session establishment request mechanism of Youn with known network-resident data analytics (AI type) function tied to session management taught by Shan to provide greater capabilities in wireless network to UEs.
Regarding claim 3, Youn discloses “in response to that the AI session establishment response contains an AI session ID,” PDU session ID may be used to indicate a relationship between AN resources with respect to the UE and the PDU session by AN signaling with respect to the UE [0014, 0181]
Youn does not expressly disclose “calling an AI service corresponding to the AI session ID”
Shan discloses NWDAF-influenced SMF/session framework shows sessions are explicitly used as vehicle for invoking a specific service/analytics function [0029]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “calling an AI service corresponding to the AI session ID” as taught by Shan into Youn’s system with the motivation to implement a session being a dedicated access path to a specific network-resident service.
Claims 4, 6-8, 28, 32, 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (USPN 20230354087) in view of Youn.
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses
a method for generating an artificial intelligence session, the method being performed by an access and mobility management function (AMF) device and comprising: (method for invoking a PDU session service for AI model usage by AMF [0142-0144], FIG.13
receiving an artificial intelligence (AI) session establishment request sent by a terminal device (AMF receives session establishment request containing an identifier of an AI model from UE [0142], FIG. 13 #S501
sending a session context creation request to a session management function (SMF) device (AMF invoke a PDU session service with SMF [0144, 0145], FIG. 13 #S503
receiving a session context creation response returned by the SMF device (AMF receives response from SMF [0152], FIG. 13 #S509
Chen does not expressly disclose “in response to that the AI session meets a preset condition; returning an AI session establishment response to the terminal device”
Youn discloses “in response to that the AI session meets a preset condition” AMF determines if request is a new PDU session/initial request and transmits to SMF [0155-0159]
returning an AI session establishment response to the terminal device (AMF transmits N1 SM information including a PDU session accept message transmitted UE [0182, 0186]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “in response to that the AI session meets a preset condition; returning an AI session establishment response to the terminal device” as taught by Youn into Chen’s system with the motivation to gating condition at AMF so that only valid requests will be forwarded to SMF to reduce signaling.
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses “wherein the AI session establishment request comprises at least one of the following information: an AI session identification ID” session identifier [0054]
Regarding claim 7, Chen does not expressly disclose “wherein the session context creation request comprises at least one of the following information: a permanent identification of a subscriber,”
Youn discloses SM request message includes a subscriber permanent ID [0159]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein the session context creation request comprises at least one of the following information: a permanent identification of a subscriber” as taught by Youn into Chen’s system with the motivation to gating condition at AMF so that only valid requests will be forwarded to SMF to reduce signaling.
Regarding claim 8, Chen does not expressly disclose “in response to that the session context creation response does not contain an AI session ID, releasing a resource associated with the Al session ID”
Youn discloses SMF rejects a UE request through NAS SM signaling (including related SM rejection cause, and reports that the PDU session ID is released to the MAF [0166, 0169]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “in response to that the session context creation response does not contain an AI session ID, releasing a resource associated with the Al session ID” as taught by Youn into Chen’s system with the motivation to gating condition at AMF so that only valid requests will be forwarded to SMF to reduce signaling.
Regarding claim 28, Chen discloses “A communication device, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and the processor, when executes the computer program stored in the memory, cause the device to perform the method according to claim 4” communication device, FIG. 21 # 900, comprising processor, FIG. 21 #910, executing instructions contained in memory, FIG. 21 #920, to perform operations in claim 4 [0251-0259]
Regarding claim 32, Chen discloses “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store instructions, wherein when the instructions are performed, the method according to claim 4 is implemented” communication device, FIG. 21 # 900, memory, FIG. 21 #920, comprising instructions to perform operations in claim 4 [0251-0259]
Regarding claim 35, Chen does not expressly disclose “determining the AI session establishment response according to the session context creation response”
Youn discloses the SMF transmits the SM response message to the AMF comprising N1 SM information, the N1 SM information may include a PDU session establishment message [0177, 0184]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “determining the AI session establishment response according to the session context creation response” as taught by Youn into Chen’s system with the motivation to provide confirmation session establishment.
Regarding claim 36, Chen does not expressly disclose “in a case where the session context creation response contains an AI session ID, generating an AI session establishment response containing the Al session ID”
Youn discloses PDU session ID is carried in both the SM response (N1/N2 SM info) and forwarded into the PDU session establishment accept message sent to the UE [0177, 0181-0186]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “in a case where the session context creation response contains an AI session ID, generating an AI session establishment response containing the Al session ID” as taught by Youn into Chen’s system with the motivation to provide confirmation session establishment.
Regarding claim 37, Chen does not expressly disclose “wherein in a case where a session registration is successful, the session context creation response contains an Al session ID corresponding to a session registration response; and in a case where the session registration fails, the session context creation response does not contain the Al session ID corresponding to the session registration response”
Youn discloses an SMF<->UDM subscriber-data exchange gating whether the SMF authenticates/approves the PDU session and rejects with cause if not [0161-0166]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein in a case where a session registration is successful, the session context creation response contains an Al session ID corresponding to a session registration response; and in a case where the session registration fails, the session context creation response does not contain the Al session ID corresponding to the session registration response” as taught by Youn into Chen’s system with the motivation to use AI session ID provide confirmation session establishment.
Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youn et al (USPN 20190364463) in view of Chen et al (USPN 20230354087).
Regarding claim 1, Youn discloses
a method for generating an artificial intelligence session, the method being performed by a terminal device and comprising: (method for generating a session performed by an UE [0149-0153], FIG. 8
sending a session establishment request to an access and mobility management function (AMF) device (UE transmits NAS message to AMF, the message including an S-NSSAI, DNN, PDU session type and N1 SM information [0149-0153]
receiving an establishment response returned by the AMF device (receiving NAS message including from AMF in response [0177, 0182, 0186]
Youn does not expressly disclose artificial intelligence (AI) session establishment request; AI session establishment response
Chen discloses artificial intelligence (AI) session establishment request (UE transmits session establishment request message to AMF, the message contains an identifier of an AI model [0142, 0159, 0167-0170], FIGs. 13, 14
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “artificial intelligence (AI) session establishment request” as taught by Chen into Youn’s system with the motivation to enable usage of AI/ML by UE (Chen, paragraphs [0034, 0064].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Qiao et al (USPN 20200413246) FIG. 11
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F campus 10:30-5pm, telework 6pm-8pm| Telework count days.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at (571)272-3085. 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.
/THAI NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights