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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
From p. 13 para. 2 to p. 15 para. 1, Applicant argues that Levy fails to describe “a reference point in the set of target reference point is a process node in a communication system”. Specifically, Applicant argues that reference points are not processing node and that Levy fails to describe a communication process. The Examiner respectively disagrees.
Each of the independent claim is short & vague, where Examiner bears the broadest interpretation of a “a reference point .. is a process node” = a reference point.. is a 160, one reference point determination component (node) having one reference point 165 (see fig. 2). Definition of ‘node’ in standard English is “a point along a pathway”. Hence, until the Applicant refines the features’ wordings, “processing node” can be interpreted as the ‘determination component’ as in Levy. The limitation “communication process” is also vastly broad; it does not need to be interpreted as a communication process within a wireless communication network as in fig. 1 of the instant application. Nevertheless, Levy indeed describes its machine learning (AI) as part for network communication (fig. 1).
On p. 15 para. 2-4, Applicant argues that Levy fails to describe “the set of target reference points comprise a reference point corresponding to an input of the first model”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner understands that at least one reference point is an input to the [first] model: para. 64, “reference points 165 may be an input to computerized physical models”.
From p. 15 last para. to p. 16 para. 3, Applicant argues that Tang fails to remedy Levy in fulfilling the above argued limitations. Examiner has expressed his viewpoint above that Levy is able to fulfill the claim limitations.
From p. 16 para. 4 to p. 17 para. 1, Applicant argues that the other two prior art used in dependent claims’ rejections Wu and Cevolani fail to remedy Levy in fulfilling the above argued limitations. Again, Examiner has expressed his viewpoint above that Levy is able to fulfill the claim limitations.
Hence, Examiner believes the features of the argued, original independent claims have been fulfilled by Levy and Tang combined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Levy (US 2022/0284348) in view of Tang (US 2022/0076167).
Regarding claim 1, Levy describes an information obtaining method, comprising:
obtaining, by a first communication device, description information of a set of target reference points, wherein a reference point in the set of target reference points is a process node in a communication process, and the set of target reference points comprises a reference point corresponding to an input of a first model and/or a reference point corresponding to an output of a second model (fig. 1 & para. 47-48, server 120 (communication device) determines (obtains) [a set of target] reference points for parameters of a physical model of system 100 comprising computing devices 110 & servers 120 (processing nodes) that are in communication over a network, the reference points representing system outputs to build/train the models).
Levy fails to further explicitly describe:
obtaining the description information of [set of target] reference points.
Tang also describes model deployment of reference points (abstract & para. 21, model of input & output nodes), further describing:
obtaining the description information of [set of target] reference points (para. 20, obtaining the input/output description file (information) of the model of input & output nodes (reference points as processing nodes)).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to specify that that first communication device in Levy to obtain the description information of reference points as in Tang.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that this enables model to run when hardware device running environment of the mode has changed (Tang, para. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Levy already describes process being a communication process in claim 1.
Levy and Tang combined describe:
wherein the description information of the set of target reference points comprises description information of the reference point in the set of target reference points (Tang para. 20-21, description file (information) of the model of input & output nodes (reference points as processing nodes)), and the description information of the reference point comprises at least one of the following:
a data format corresponding to the process location information of the reference point in the process (Tang para. 21, description file comprising input (process location) data format and output (process location) data format) within the process).
Regarding claim 3, Levy and Tang combined describe:
wherein the set of target reference points is obtained by the first communication device performing reference point configuration on a pre-obtained set of first reference points, and reference point configuration comprises at least one of the following: adding a first reference point to the set of first reference points (Levy fig. 5 & para. 75-77, in updating the model, new reference point(s) are received (added) to the model).
Regarding claim 4, Levy and Tang combined describe:
wherein the first communication device adds a first reference point to the set of first reference points based on a first triggering condition (Tang fig. 1 & para. 4, configuration file generated from the obtained input/output description file is deployed to the model if the inference parameter value is >= preset inference parameter threshold (first triggering condition)).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy in view of Tang as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Wu (US 2011/0249899).
Regarding claim 10, Levy and Tang combined fails to further explicitly describe:
wherein the first communication device modifies the association relationship between the reference points in the set of first reference points based on a third triggering condition.
Wu also describes learning device creating a model (fig. 1), further describing:
wherein the device modifies the association relationship between the reference points in the set of first reference points based on a third triggering condition (para. 14, learning device 1’s correcting unit corrects the model feature point in view of the reference point (association relationship between reference points & first reference points) according to (based on) result of the determination of whether or not the nearest candidate of the reference point is present at a position where the reference point (trigger)).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to specify that the communication device of Levy and Tang to modify the association relationship between the reference points in the set of first reference points based on a third triggering condition as in Wu.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that this enables the method to locate the nearest set of feature (reference) points (Wu, para. 10-11).
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy in view of Tang as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Cevolani (US 2021/0311808).
Regarding claim 13, Levy describes:
obtaining the description information of the set of target reference points, wherein the set of target reference points comprises a set obtained through reference point configuration on the set of first reference points (fig. 1 & para. 47-48, server 120 (communication device) determines (obtains) [a set of target] reference points for parameters of a physical model of system 100 comprising computing devices 110 & servers 120 (processing nodes) that are in communication over a network, the reference points representing system outputs to build/train the models).
Levy and Tang combined describe:
obtaining the description information of [set of target] reference points (Tang para. 20, obtaining the input/output description file (information) of the model of input & output nodes (reference points as processing nodes)).
Yet Levy and Tang combined fail to further explicitly describe:
sending, by the first communication device to a second communication device,
wherein a manner of sending the set of target reference points comprises at least one of periodic sending, sending triggered based on an event, or sending triggered based on an instruction.
Cevolani also describes communication between nodes (fig. 2 & para. 77), further describing:
sending, by the first communication device to a second communication device (fig. 2-3 & para. 5, 8 & 75, exchange phase of the process where updates of data & configurations are sent between first & second processing nodes (communication devices),
wherein a manner of sending the set of target reference points comprises at least one of periodic sending (para. 16, process to be done over plurality of time periods).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to specify that the description information obtained in the communication network of Levy and Tang combined to be sent from first node to second nodes periodically as in Cevolani.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that this improves the utilization of available bandwidth for exchanging data between different processing nodes (Cevolani, para. 8).
Regarding claim 18, Levy describes an information obtaining method, comprising:
obtaining a set of target reference points, wherein a reference point in the set of target reference points is a process node in a communication process, and the set of target reference points comprises a reference point corresponding to an input of a first model and/or a reference point corresponding to an output of a second model (fig. 1 & para. 47-48, server 120 (communication device) determines (obtains) [a set of target] reference points for parameters of a physical model of system 100 comprising computing devices 110 & servers 120 (processing nodes) that are in communication over a network, the reference points representing system outputs to build/train the models).
Levy fails to further explicitly describe:
obtaining the description information of [set of target] reference points.
Tang also describes model deployment of reference points (abstract & para. 21, model of input & output nodes), further describing:
obtaining the description information of [set of target] reference points (para. 20, obtaining the input/output description file (information) of the model of input & output nodes (reference points as processing nodes)).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to specify that that first communication device in Levy to obtain the description information of reference points as in Tang.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that this enables model to run when hardware device running environment of the mode has changed (Tang, para. 3).
Levy and Tang combined fail to further explicitly describe:
receiving by a second communication device from a first communication device, such information.
Cevolani also describes communication between nodes (fig. 2 & para. 77), further describing:
sending, by the first communication device to a second communication device (fig. 2-3 & para. 5, 8 & 75, exchange phase of the process where updates of data & configurations are sent between first & second processing nodes (communication devices),
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to specify that the description information obtained in the communication network of Levy and Tang combined to be sent from first node to second nodes as in Cevolani.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that this improves the utilization of available bandwidth for exchanging data between different processing nodes (Cevolani, para. 8).
Claim 19 is an apparatus (communication device) claim comprising processor, memory & program or instruction to carry out the communication device method of claim 1, which is described in Levy (fig. 2, communication device 130 comprising processor 202, storage memory 201). Hence, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 is an apparatus (communication device) claim comprising processor, memory & program or instruction to carry out the communication device method of claim 18, which is described in Levy (fig. 2, communication device 130 comprising processor 202, storage memory 201). Hence, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9, 11-12 and 14-17 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.
Conclusion
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 WARNER WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-8197. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am - 3:30pm.
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 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.
WARNER WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2469
/WARNER WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights