The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 23 August 2024. THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite.
Claim 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
There is no art rejection for claims 1-10.
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.
A claim is indefinite if, when read in light of the specification, it fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 110 USPQ.2d 1688, U.S. Supreme Court (2014).
Claims 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 / 4 / 6 / 9, the clam recites, in relevant part: "the N artificial intelligence algorithm models are more suitable for processing the data than remaining (M−N) artificial intelligence algorithm models." However, each of these claims earlier establishes antecedent basis only for "first data" (e.g., claim 1: "first data pre-obtained by a terminal device"; claim 1: "the first data is to be processed by..."), not for a standalone term "data." There is insufficient antecedent basis for "the data", rendering it unclear whether "the data" refers back to "the first data" or introduces an unclaimed, separate quantity of data, the claim is therefore indefinite.
Examiner's suggestion: Amend "the data" to recite "the first data" in each instance to establish proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 2-3 / 5 / 7-8 / 10, which depend on above rejected claim 1 / 4 / 6 / 9, are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 1 / 6, the claim recites "in association with a first condition being satisfied, sending... configuration information..." The claim does not set forth any limitation defining what the "first condition" is or how it is evaluated, and the phrase "in association with" does not clearly establish whether satisfaction of the condition is a prerequisite that triggers the sending step, is merely temporally coincident with it, or bears some other undefined relationship to it. Because the claim as a whole recites no structure or step for evaluating the condition, and the causal/temporal nexus between the condition and the sending step is not defined, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty when the claimed sending step is required to occur, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. Examiner's suggestion: Replace "in association with a first condition being satisfied" with clearer conditional language, e.g., "in response to determining that a first condition is satisfied," and/or incorporate the substance of dependent claim 3/8 ("wherein the first condition comprises N being greater than or equal to 1") into the independent claim to give the condition definite content.
Regarding claims 2-3 / 7-8, which depend on above rejected claim 1 / 6, are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 2 / 7, the claim recites "the K pieces of training data are of the ith artificial intelligence algorithm model." The phrase "are of" does not clearly convey a relationship recognized in the art (e.g., "are training data used to train," "are associated with," or "were used to generate") and, read literally, is grammatically incomplete. It is unclear what relationship is being claimed between the K pieces of training data and the ith model.
Examiner's suggestion: Amend to recite, e.g., "the K pieces of training data are training data of the ith artificial intelligence algorithm model" (consistent with spec ¶0010) or "were used to train the i.sup.th artificial intelligence algorithm model."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Judicial Exception
Claims 1-10 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-3, 6-8,
(Independent Claims) With regards to claim 1 / 6,
Step 1: The claim recites a process / machine, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites: “… determining …. N artificial intelligence algorithm models, in the M artificial intelligence algorithm models, based on the data feature information and the M pieces of model feature information, wherein M is a positive integer greater than or equal to 1, N is an integer greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to M, i is a positive integer less than or equal to M, and the N artificial intelligence algorithm models are more suitable for processing the data than remaining (M–N) artificial intelligence algorithm models of the M artificial intelligence algorithm models …” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “determining …”, in the limitation citied above encompasses evaluating & choosing models, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: (a) “A communication apparatus, comprising: a processor; and a memory configured to store computer readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the communication apparatus to …”, “A communication apparatus …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “obtaining, by a communication apparatus, M pieces of model feature information, wherein the M pieces of model feature information have a one-to-one correspondence to M artificial intelligence algorithm models stored in the communication apparatus, or stored in a device corresponding to the communication apparatus, an ith piece of model feature information, in the M pieces of model feature information, comprises a feature of an ith artificial intelligence algorithm model, the M artificial intelligence algorithm models are configured to process first data pre-obtained by a terminal device, and the first data is to be processed by using at least one of the M artificial intelligence algorithm models; receiving, by the communication apparatus, data feature information from the terminal device, wherein the data feature information comprises a feature of the first data”; which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering / post-solution data output (see MPEP.2106.05(g)); (c) “in association with a first condition being satisfied, sending, by the communication apparatus, configuration information corresponding to at least one of the N artificial intelligence algorithm models to the terminal device, wherein the configuration information is used to configure one or more of: an artificial intelligence algorithm model, a parameter of the artificial intelligence algorithm model, or a manner of obtaining the artificial intelligence algorithm model …”, which is field of use and technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly. the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of (a) “A communication apparatus, comprising: a processor; and a memory configured to store computer readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the communication apparatus to …”, “A communication apparatus …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “obtaining, by a communication apparatus, M pieces of model feature information, wherein the M pieces of model feature information have a one-to-one correspondence to M artificial intelligence algorithm models stored in the communication apparatus, or stored in a device corresponding to the communication apparatus, an ith piece of model feature information, in the M pieces of model feature information, comprises a feature of an ith artificial intelligence algorithm model, the M artificial intelligence algorithm models are configured to process first data pre-obtained by a terminal device, and the first data is to be processed by using at least one of the M artificial intelligence algorithm models; receiving, by the communication apparatus, data feature information from the terminal device, wherein the data feature information comprises a feature of the first data”; which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering / post-solution data output (see MPEP.2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"); (c) “in association with a first condition being satisfied, sending, by the communication apparatus, configuration information corresponding to at least one of the N artificial intelligence algorithm models to the terminal device, wherein the configuration information is used to configure one or more of: an artificial intelligence algorithm model, a parameter of the artificial intelligence algorithm model, or a manner of obtaining the artificial intelligence algorithm model …”, which is field of use and technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 2-3 / 7-8 are dependent on claim 1 / 6 and include all the limitations of claim 1 / 6. Therefore, claims 2-3 / 7-8 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 2 / 7, the claim recites further limitation of “… wherein the ith piece of model feature information is determined based on features of K pieces of training data, the K pieces of training data are of the ith artificial intelligence algorithm model, and K is an integer greater than or equal to 1” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further process of model evaluation, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 3 / 8, the claim recites further limitation of “… wherein the first condition comprises N being greater than or equal to 1” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further process of model evaluation, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 4-5, 9-10,
(Independent Claims) With regards to claim 4 / 9,
Step 1: The claim recites a process / machine, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites: “… determining, by the communication apparatus, N artificial intelligence algorithm models, in the M artificial intelligence algorithm models, based on the data feature information and the M pieces of model feature information, wherein the N artificial intelligence algorithm models are more suitable for processing the data than remaining (M–N) artificial intelligence algorithm models of the M artificial intelligence algorithm models, M is a positive integer greater than or equal to 1, N is an integer greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to M, and i is a positive integer less than or equal to M” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “determining …”, in the limitation citied above encompasses evaluating & choosing models, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: (a) “A communication apparatus, comprising: a processor; and a memory configured to store computer readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the communication apparatus to …”, “A communication apparatus …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “receiving, by a communication apparatus, a first message from a network device, wherein the first message comprises M pieces of model feature information, the M pieces of model feature information have a one-to-one correspondence to M artificial intelligence algorithm models stored in the network device, or stored in a device corresponding to the network device, an ith piece of model feature information, in the M pieces of model feature information, comprises a feature of an ith artificial intelligence algorithm model, the M artificial intelligence algorithm models are configured to process first data pre-obtained by the communication apparatus, and the first data is to be processed by using at least one of the M artificial intelligence algorithm models; obtaining, by the communication apparatus, data feature information, wherein the data feature information comprises a feature of the first data”; which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering / post-solution data output (see MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly. the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of (a) “A communication apparatus, comprising: a processor; and a memory configured to store computer readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the communication apparatus to …”, “A communication apparatus …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “receiving, by a communication apparatus, a first message from a network device, wherein the first message comprises M pieces of model feature information, the M pieces of model feature information have a one-to-one correspondence to M artificial intelligence algorithm models stored in the network device, or stored in a device corresponding to the network device, an ith piece of model feature information, in the M pieces of model feature information, comprises a feature of an ith artificial intelligence algorithm model, the M artificial intelligence algorithm models are configured to process first data pre-obtained by the communication apparatus, and the first data is to be processed by using at least one of the M artificial intelligence algorithm models; obtaining, by the communication apparatus, data feature information, wherein the data feature information comprises a feature of the first data”; which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering / post-solution data output (see MPEP.2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 5 / 10 are dependent on claim 4 / 9 and include all the limitations of claim 4 / 9. Therefore, claims 5 / 10 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 5 / 10, the claim recites further limitation of “… wherein the first message further comprises configuration information respectively corresponding to the M artificial intelligence algorithm models” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further process of model evaluation, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The claim recites additional element of “the configuration information is used to configure one or more of: an artificial intelligence algorithm model, a parameter of the artificial intelligence algorithm model, and a manner of obtaining the artificial intelligence algorithm model”, which is field of use and technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “the configuration information is used to configure one or more of: an artificial intelligence algorithm model, a parameter of the artificial intelligence algorithm model, and a manner of obtaining the artificial intelligence algorithm model”, which is field of use and technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 include allowable subject matter since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per, MPEP §2111.01 or Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069, 1069 (Fed.Cir. 1999), none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in claims 1-10.
In interpreting the claims, in light of the specification filed on 23 August 2024, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior arts of record.
Regarding the claims, the primary reason for allowance is the inclusion of the specific process of a network device selecting N of M candidate AI models by computing a distance between histogram-statistics-derived data feature information and per-model feature information, then sending configuration information for the selected model(s) to the terminal device, without transmitting the AI decoder or original data between devices.
None of the cited prior art references, singly or in combination, fully teaches all limitations of independent claims 1, 4, 6 and 9.
Regarding the dependent claims, which include all the limitations of the independent claims, are also allowed.
The followings are references close to the invention claimed:
Watson et al., US-PGPUB No. 20200320379A1 [hereafter Watson] teaches computing a similarity/distance metric between a target dataset's feature representation and a pre-trained neural network model's feature representation to select a suitable transfer-learning model. However, Watson does not teach the specific claimed combination of a network device and terminal device exchanging histogram-based data/model feature information for AI model selection in a communication system without transmitting the AI decoder or original data.
Givental et al., US-PGPUB No. 20210264025A1 [hereafter Givental] teaches a trained ML model selector that dynamically selects and ensembles machine learning models based on characteristics of new input data. However, Givental does not teach the specific claimed combination of model feature information derived from K pieces of training data via histogram statistics collection compared against terminal-computed data feature information to select N of M wireless AI models.
Pezeshki et al., US-PGPUB No. 20210194548A1 [hereafter Pezeshki] teaches a first wireless device selecting a neural network from a plurality of neural networks based on antenna configuration and transmitting configuration information/parameters to a second device. However, Pezeshki does not teach the specific claimed combination of selecting N of M AI models based on a distance between histogram-derived data feature information and model feature information, without transmitting the decoder or original data.
Achille et al., "Task2Vec: Task Embedding for Meta-Learning," ICCV 2019 [hereafter Achille] teaches selecting a pretrained "expert" feature-extractor model for a new task by computing embedding distance, avoiding brute-force search over all candidate models. However, Achille does not teach the specific claimed combination of network-device/terminal-device signaling of histogram-based feature information for wireless AI model configuration without transmitting a decoder or raw data.
Dalal & Triggs, "Histograms of Oriented Gradients for Human Detection," CVPR 2005 [hereafter Dalal] teaches extracting a feature vector from data via histogram statistics collection (HOG) over localized cells for pattern matching. However, Dalal does not teach the specific claimed combination of using such histogram-derived features to compute model-to-data distances for selecting AI models in a network device/terminal device signaling framework.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3567. The fax number is 571-273-3567.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589.
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.
/TSU-CHANG LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights