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 1/27/2026. Claims 1, 2, and 5-20 are pending. Claims 3 and 4 are canceled. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9-11, and 17-20 are currently amended.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a model connection relationship between AI models” and it is not clear what these (plural) AI models are referring to because there is only a single AI model referenced in connection with the processing mode. Other dependent claims do not remedy the deficiency and are therefore, rejected as well.
Claim 13 recites limitations that are unrelated to the parent claim 1 and it is not possible to interpret with reasonable accuracy what the limitations are referring to and therefore, impossible to apply prior art. Claim clarity issues extend to dependent claim 14 and claim 15.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-12, 16-19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ITU-T Standard Y.3172 (“Architectural framework for machine learning in future networks including IMT-2020; Y.3172 (06/19)”, ITU-T STANDARD Y.3172, International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, CH, 6/22/2019; Included in the IDS dated 9/30/2025; hereinafter ITU-T).
Regarding claim 1, ITU-T teaches a communication method, comprising:
receiving, by a second end from a first end, first indication information, wherein the first indication information is used to indicate a processing mode of a target object at a reference point, the first end and the second end are different communication devices with sending and receiving functions, and the target object comprises at least one of data, a signal, or a service and processing, by the second end, the target object at the reference point based on the processing mode, [Figure 3 and component 1 machine learning pipeline, note 1, component 2 MLFO and notes 9 and 10 for processing mode; reference points in Figures 3 and 4 and Page 17];
wherein the processing mode comprises either of the following:
a processing mode based on an artificial intelligence (AT) model, [Page 14, Section 1, Page 15, Note 4]; or
a processing mode determined by a target end, wherein the target end comprises the second end, [component 2 MLFO and notes 9 and 10, Page 15 Note 7/8];
wherein the processing mode based on the AI model is indicated by at least one of the following:
a model connection relationship between AI models, [a single AI model is referenced above and it is not clear where these other models (plural) reference is coming from; Page 15, Note 11 connecting ML nodes together to form a pipeline];
a startup mode of the AI model, [claim limitation is vague and it is not clear what the a startup mode is referring to; Page 15, Note 12 for ML intent]; or
information about a processing domain corresponding to the AI model, wherein the processing domain comprises the reference point, [Figures 3 and 4; Page 15, Notes 10-11 chaining functionality and the reference point determines the model and functionality].
Claims 17, 19, and 20 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected as above.
Regarding claim 2, ITU-T teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the reference point is determined based on at least one of the following:
a predefinition;
a protocol agreement, [Page 16, Note 14 and Page 13]; or
second indication information sent by a third end, wherein the second indication information is used to indicate the reference point.
Regarding claim 6, ITU-T teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the processing, by the second end, the target object at the reference point based on the processing mode comprises at least one of the following:
in a case that the model connection relationship between the AI models comprises the processing order of the AI models, determining, by the second end, a first application AI model according to the processing order of the AI models, and starting the first application AI model according to the processing order of the AI models to process the target object, [processing order is determined by the pipeline structure as in Figure 3, Page 15, Note 11]; or
in a case that the model connection relationship between the AI models comprises the input-output relationship between the AI models, determining, by the second end, a second application AI model based on the input-output relationship between the AI models, and processing the target object by using the second application AI model, [Figures 3 and 4; ingress/outgress relationship between each ML node].
Regarding claim 7, ITU-T teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first indication information comprises first target information used to indicate the model connection relationship between the AI models, and the first target information comprises at least one of the following:
a model identifier used to indicate an AI model used by the target end, wherein the target end comprises the second end, [Figure 3 where the ML nodes in the pipeline are identified]; or
a model connection identifier used to indicate a connection relationship between different AI models, [Figure 3 and 4, Page 15, Note 11; provides chaining functionality connecting ML nodes together to form the pipeline].
Regarding claim 8, ITU-T teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein the first target information comprises model configuration information, and the model configuration information comprises the model identifier; and the model configuration information is further used to configure an input of the AI model to cite a first object, and the first object comprises at least one of the following: a preset reference point or an output of another AI model, [Page 15, Note 11, Figure 3 and the claim limitations are broadly interpreted as the ML chaining functionality and see 112b rejection for claims being incomplete and it is not possible fully assess the scope and breadth of these limitations without the required context which is lacking].
Regarding claim 9, ITU-T teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the startup mode of the AI model comprises at least one of the following:
startup based on a preset start time, [Figures 3 and 4, Page 15, Note 11 chaining functionality];
startup in a case that data of at least one reference point corresponding to the AI model arrives, [Figures 3 and 4, Page 15, Note 11 chaining functionality];
startup in a case that data of at least one reference point in the data of the at least one reference point corresponding to the AI model is updated, [Figures 3 and 4, Page 15, Note 11 chaining functionality];
startup in a case that all inputs required by the AI model arrive, [Figures 3 and 4, Page 15, Note 11 chaining functionality];
startup in a case that at least one preset AI model completes processing, [Figures 3 and 4, Page 15, Note 11 chaining functionality];
startup in a case that an output of at least one preset AI model is updated, [Figures 3 and 4, Page 15, Note 11 chaining functionality];
startup in a case that the AI model receives an input from a previous AI model, [Figures 3 and 4, Page 15, Note 11 chaining functionality]; or
startup in a case that the AI model receives a preset output value from another AI model, [Figures 3 and 4, Page 15, Note 11 chaining functionality];
wherein at least one AI model is started, [Figures 3 and 4, Page 15, Note 11 chaining functionality].
Regarding claim 10, ITU-T teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein there is at least one processing domain, and the processing domain is determined by at least one of the following:
a function of the reference point, [See Figure 4];
a relationship between an input/output of the AI model and the reference point, [See Figure 3]; and
the model connection relationship between the AI models, [see 112b rejection].
Regarding claim 11, ITU-T teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the information about the processing domain comprises at least one of the following: a processing time constraint corresponding to the processing domain; or a processing mode corresponding to the processing domain, [Page 15, Note 11 MLFO determines the chaining considering the constraints, e.g. timing constraints; Figure 3, Page 14, section 1].
Regarding claim 12, ITU-T teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the processing time constraint corresponding to the processing domain or the processing mode corresponding to the processing domain comprises at least one of the following: the startup mode of the AI model, a start time of the AI model, an end time of the AI model, or processing duration of the AI model; or, wherein different processing domains correspond to respective processing time constraints; or, wherein different processing domains correspond to respective processing modes, [Page 15, Note 11: the MLFO provides chaining functionality connecting ML nodes together to form an ML pipeline, Page 8 note 3 in certain use cases, user plane data classification may be done using ML models. Since user plane data classification is latency-sensitive application, the model may be hosted at the transport network, whereas the training could be done at the CN (domain and time constraints)].
Regarding claim 13, 14, and 15 [see 112b rejection].
Regarding claim 16, ITU-T teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first indication information is further used to indicate at least one of a test mode or a test requirement for the reference point, [Page 15, Section 3].
Claim 18 corresponds to claim 2, and is rejected as above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claim amendments appear to address the 112 issues highlighted in the previous office action but does not materially change the scope and meaning of the independent claims because the amended limitations were already rejected in the previous office action. Applicant’s argument to this aspect is unpersuasive and claim clarity is still an issue and examiner suggests incorporating the features of the claimed invention that are clearly distinguishable from the ITU-T STANDARD Y.3172 and avoid reciting claim elements in the alternative.
Conclusion
See PTO-892 for additional references.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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