DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted August 5, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 10, 19, and all dependent thereon, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The following terms are recited in the Applicant’s specification, but lack enough accompanying description to demonstrate possession of the specific concept tied to the term: “split learning location”; “inference of segmentation point location”; “quantity of local epochs of federated learning.”
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 1, 10, 19, and all dependent thereon, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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. The following terms have no ordinary meaning in the art and Applicant’s specification fails to provide a clear definition or context: “split learning location”; “inference of segmentation point location”; “quantity of local epochs of federated learning.” For purposes of examination, the terms are interpreted in the following manner, respectively: “split learning location” – a location where information is acquired from multiple sources and/or in a distributed manner; “inference of segmentation point location” – judgement functionality related to information aggregation; “quantity of local epochs of federated learning” – tracking of aggregates related to information acquisition.
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 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.
8. 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.
9. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 nonobviousness.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2023/0072769 A1 (hereinafter “Yeh`769”), in view of either U.S. Publication No. 2022/0014963 A1 (hereinafter “Yeh`963”) or U.S. Publication No. 2023/0095384 A1 (hereinafter “Sharma”), and in further view of one of: U.S. Publication No. 2023/0068386 A1 (hereinafter “Akdeniz”); U.S. Publication No. 2022/0383202 A1 (hereinafter “Yu”); or U.S. Publication No. 2017/0300828 A1 (hereinafter “Feng”).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 19: Yeh`769 teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a first apparatus, a first message from a second apparatus at a network side, the first message comprising configuration information of at least one computing power instance (see, e.g., [0042]-[0046], [0051]-[0055], [0290]-[0291]; configurations including power information are received from a network);
obtaining, by the first apparatus, first information, the first information indicating a first computing power instance and the first computing power instance is a computing power instance in the at least one computing power instance (see, e.g., [0042]-[0046], [0051]-[0055], [0290]-[0291]; power information is obtained); and
executing, by the first apparatus, the first computing power instance based on the first information (see, e.g., [0042]-[0046], [0051]-[0055], [0290]-[0291]; power information is implemented).
Yeh`769 does not explicitly state “computing power instance.” To the extent this feature is not inherent to Yeh`769, it is nevertheless taught in Yeh`963 (see, e.g., [0088]-[0091], [0309]; note leveraging of computing power; note also configuration reception). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Yeh`963, such as the signaling and/or parameter functionality, within the system of Yeh`761, in order to satisfy application demands.
Alternatively to Yeh`963, the said feature is taught by Sharma (see, e.g., [0517]-[0524]; note also [0338], [0554]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Sharma, such as the signaling and/or parameter functionality, within the system of Yeh`761, in order to application and network latency.
Yeh`769 modified by Yeh`963 or Sharma does not explicitly state the feature(s) wherein the computing power instance “indicates a computing resource usage mode or method related to a computing amount, wherein the computing resource usage mode or method comprises at least one of: a split learning location, an inference segmentation point location, or a quantity of local epochs of federated learning.” However, at least one of these features is taught by Akdeniz (see, e.g., [0129], [0130], [0812]-[0814]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Akdeniz, such as the signaling and/or parameter functionality, within the system of Yeh`761 modified by Yeh`963 or Sharma, in order to assess processing points and/or improve edge computing.
Alternatively to Akdeniz, at least one of these features is taught by Yu (see, e.g., [0023], [0028], [0040], reference claim 4 on p. 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Yu, such as the processing and/or configuration functionality, within the system of Yeh`761 modified by Yeh`963 or Sharma, in order to implement or improve distributed machine learning services.
Alternatively to Akdeniz and Yu, at least one of these features is taught by Feng (see, e.g., [0039]-[0042]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Feng, such as the processing and/or configuration functionality, within the system of Yeh`761 modified by Yeh`963 or Sharma, in order to implement or improve learning and/or distributed processing.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 1 is applicable to the apparatus and medium of claims 10 and 19, respectively.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20: Yeh`769 modified by Yeh`963 or Sharma, and further Akdeniz, Yu, or Feng, further teaches wherein the first message further comprises configuration information of at least one computing power resource, and the at least one computing power resource is associated with the at least one computing power instance (see, e.g., Yeh`769 [0043], [0044], [0057]; Yeh`963 [0087], [0112], [0153], [0155]; and/or Sharma [0524]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 2.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 2 is applicable to the apparatus and medium of claims 11 and 20, respectively.
Regarding claims 3 and 12: Yeh`769 modified by Yeh`963 or Sharma, and further Akdeniz, Yu, or Feng, further teaches wherein the first information comprises one or more of: an identifier of the first computing power instance, or an identifier of computing power resource information corresponding to the first computing power instance (see, e.g., Yeh`769 [0052]; Yeh`963 [0248], [0267], [0337], [0575]; and/or Sharma [0114], [0171]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 3.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 3 is applicable to the apparatus of claim 12.
Regarding claims 4 and 13: Yeh`769 modified by Yeh`963 or Sharma, and further Akdeniz, Yu, or Feng, further teaches receiving, by the first apparatus, a reference signal (RS); and sending, by the first apparatus, a measurement result corresponding to the RS (see, e.g., Yeh`769 [0044]-[0045], [0195]; Yeh`963 [0171]; and/or Sharma [0036], [0455]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 4.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 4 is applicable to the apparatus of claim 13.
Regarding claims 5 and 14: Yeh`769 modified by Yeh`963 or Sharma, and further Akdeniz, Yu, or Feng, further teaches wherein: the first computing power instance is a default computing power instance; or the computing power resource information corresponding to the first computing power instance is default computing power resource information; or the first computing power instance is the default computing power instance and the computing power resource information corresponding to the first computing power instance is the default computing power resource information (see, e.g., Yeh`963 [0241], [0380]-[0386]; and/or Sharma [0115], [0185]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 5.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 5 is applicable to the apparatus of claim 14.
Regarding claims 7 and 16: Yeh`769 modified by Yeh`963 or Sharma, and further Akdeniz, Yu, or Feng, further teaches sending, by the first apparatus, first indication information to the second apparatus, the first indication information indicating a computing power status of the first apparatus (see, e.g., Yeh`769 [0043], [0044], [0057], [0187]; Yeh`963 [0087], [0112], [0153], [0155], [0313], [0357]; and/or Sharma [0058][0524]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 7.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 7 is applicable to the apparatus of claim 16.
Regarding claims 8 and 17: Yeh`769 modified by Yeh`963 or Sharma, and further Akdeniz, Yu, or Feng, further teaches sending, by the first apparatus, second indication information to the second apparatus, the second indication information indicating one or more of: computing power resource information or a computing power instance expected by the first apparatus (see, e.g., Yeh`769 [0043], [0044], [0057], [0187]; Yeh`963 [0087], [0112], [0153], [0155], [0313], [0357]; and/or Sharma [0058][0524]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 8.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 8 is applicable to the apparatus of claim 17.
Regarding claims 9 and 18: Yeh`769 modified by Yeh`963 or Sharma, and further Akdeniz, Yu, or Feng, further teaches sending, by the first apparatus, third indication information, the third indication information indicating computing power adjustment information of the first apparatus; and receiving, by the first apparatus, third configuration information from the second apparatus, the third configuration information updating one or more of: the first configuration information, or the second configuration information (see, e.g., Yeh`769 [0035], [0187]; Yeh`963 [0061]-[0065]; and/or Sharma [0304]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 9.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 9 is applicable to the apparatus of claim 18.
12. Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yeh`769 in view of either Yeh`963 or Sharma Yeh`769, in further view of one of Akdeniz, Yu, or Feng, and alternatively in further view of or U.S. Publication No. 2019/0327580 A1 (hereinafter “Chang”).
Regarding claims 6 and 15: Yeh`769 modified by Yeh`963 or Sharma, and further Akdeniz, Yu, or Feng, further teaches wherein the first information is obtained when at least one of the following is met: a first timer expires, wherein configuration information of the first timer is comprised in the first message; a battery level of the first apparatus is less than a first threshold; or the first apparatus enters a radio resource control (RRC) idle state (see, e.g., Yeh`963 [0346]; and/or Sharma [0034]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 6.
To the extent the said feature(s) is/are not inherent to Yeh`769 modified by Yeh`963 or Sharma, and further Akdeniz, Yu, or Feng, at least one of the features is taught by Chang (see, e.g., [0013]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Chang, such as the monitoring functionality, within the system of Yeh`769 modified by Yeh`963 or Sharma, and further Akdeniz, Yu, or Feng, in order to determine power levels and/or requirements.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 6 is applicable to the apparatus of claim 15.
Conclusion
13. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights