DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to an application filed on 07/18/2024.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-18, and 20-25 are pending for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 07/18/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
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 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(a) 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20240414063 A1), hereinafter “Liu”; in view of Ren et al. (US 20240256898 A1), hereinafter “Ren”, and in further view of Zigelboim et al. (US 202180152281 A1), hereinafter “Zigelboim”.
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches A method implemented for controlling resource usage associated with delivery of training results for a machine learning operation [, the method comprising [Liu: Par. 60 teaches the method for network data analytic which includes receiving, sending to request a subscription of analytics information of artificial intelligence/machine learning AI/ML model transfer status in the network]:
receiving, delay measurements between the WTRU and an Application Server or Application Function (AS/AF) [Liu: Par. 11- 132 teaches where received message includes packet delay and UEs IDs]
determining whether the WTRU is capable to process and to deliver training results of the machine learning operation to the AS/AF within a specified time period based on the predicted one or more upcoming delays [Liu: Fig. 7; Par. 240- 247 teaches of sending message including a packet delay in uplink/downlink for an AI/ML model; Par. 187 these parameters increase or decrease with the increase or decrease of a prediction result to make a 5GS meet a QoS requirement]; and
predicting one or more upcoming delays using the received packet delay measurements, the predicted one or more upcoming packet delays comprise predicted delays between the WTRU and the AS/AF [Liu: Fig. 7; Par. 240- 247 teaches of sending message including a packet delay in uplink/downlink for an AI/ML model; Par. 187 these parameters increase or decrease with the increase or decrease of a prediction result to make a 5GS meet a QoS requirement];
sending a message indicating, based on the determination, one of: (i) a Packet Data Unit (PDU) session release or (ii) a PDU session modification [Liu: Par. 12 teaches of message further includes an indication of a data network for a PDU session for a quality of service flow on which an AI/ML model is transferred]
PNG
media_image1.png
428
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Liu does not teach the method is in a Wireless Transmit Receive Unit (WTRU) [Ren: Fig. 2 UE 104] and an Application Server;
Nevertheless, Ren, in the similar field of endeavor, teaches receiving, at the WTRU, measurements between the WTRU and an application [Ren: Par. 60, a model update to be applied to the FL model is generated based on local training on the FL model. The local model updating component 242 (of the UE) generates the model update to be applied to the FL model. The updates from the various UEs are collected and applied to the base model and received from network (Fig. 6);
PNG
media_image2.png
536
396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Ren for receiving and transmitting from network to UE. One in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Ren in the Liu’s NWDAF with a motivation to make this modification in order to be able to implement federal learning in delay analyzing network.
However, Liu in view of Ren does not teach delays is one-way packet delays.
Nevertheless, Zigelboim, in the similar field of endeavor, teaches delays is one-way packet delays [Zigelboim: Fig. 2; Par. 47 to 66 teaches measuring of one-way delays in a communication network].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Zigelboim to measure one-way delays in communication network. One in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Zigelboim in the Liu/ ren system with a motivation to make this modification in order to improve queuing delay [Zigelboim: Par. 14].
Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the combined Liu/ Ren in view of Zigelboim, teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 10. Liu/ Ren in view of Zigelboim further teaches wherein the processor is configured to further predict upcoming packet delays using a history of packet delay measurements to predict upcoming one or more one-way packet delays [Liu: Par. 114 teaches provide data analytics wherein an analytics result may be historical statistical information or forecast information].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 6-8, 11-12, 15- 18, 20- 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of the action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYAW Z SOE whose telephone number is (571)270-0304. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 5712707191. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/KYAW Z SOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights