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 .
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.
Claims 37-56 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards nonstatutory subject matter.
The claims are rejected because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Exemplary claim 37 recites the following steps:
determining one or more data set characteristics indicative of a relevance of a data set to the Al operation,
obtaining a test specification defining a test to be performed on a data set of the wireless device, where the outcome of the test is indicative of if the data set of the wireless device has the one or more data set characteristics,
transmitting the test specification to the wireless device,
receiving a result of the test performed on the data set of the wireless device as a test outcome from the wireless device, and
verifying if the data set of the wireless device meets an acceptance criterion for use in the Al operation, based on the received test outcome.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of steps a) and (e) are that the steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The claim recites additional elements in steps b), c), and d) which are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and which describe the use of a computer as a tool to perform the generic function of receiving and transmitting data, and thus are insignificant extra solution activity which fail to impose any meaningful limits on the claims . See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional elements b), c), and d) merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fail to add an inventive concept to the claims. When viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The extra-solution activity represented by b), c), and d) amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network which are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Steps b), c), and d) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The remaining claims and/or claim language is addressed by similar rationale as provided above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 37-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by 20240056836 to Kovacs.
Regarding claim 37, Kovacs teaches a method, performed in a network node, for facilitating an artificial intelligence (AI) operation in a wireless access network, the method comprising
determining one or more data set characteristics indicative of a relevance of a data set to the AI operation (¶ 27, 32, 36, 39, 41, 45-46, 52, determining relevant data set characteristics),
obtaining a test specification defining a test to be performed on a data set of the wireless device, where the outcome of the test is indicative of if the data set of the wireless device has the one or more data set characteristics (¶ 27, 32, 36, 39, 41, 45-46, 52. obtaining test specification to be performed, data indicative of wireless device having data characteristics),
transmitting the test specification to the wireless device (¶ 36-, 41-45-46, 52, 54, transmitting test specification to wireless device),
receiving a result of the test performed on the data set of the wireless device as a test outcome from the wireless device (¶ 23, 31, 39, 52-54, receiving results of test from wireless device), and
verifying if the data set of the wireless device meets an acceptance criterion for use in the AI operation, based on the received test outcome (abstract, ¶ 54-56, verification of criteria for use of AI operation).
Regarding claim 38,
Kovacs teaches:
performing at least part of the AI operation and/or instructing the wireless device to perform at least part of the AI operation, conditioned on that the data set of the wireless device meets the acceptance criterion (¶ 27, 32, 36, 41, 45-46, 52-54).
Regarding claim 39
Kovacs teaches:
obtaining the test specification at least in part from a condition generator (CG) function external to the network node or comprised in the network node (¶ 52-54).
Regarding claim 40
Kovacs teaches:
adjusting the test specification in dependence of a response to a previously transmitted test specification (¶ 33, 45, 55, 36-37, 60, claim 62, adjustment of test specification).
Regarding claim 41,
Kovacs teaches:
obtaining the test specification as a test specification comprising a respective configuration to be applied at the wireless device while performing a test according to the test specification (¶ 33, 37-38, 45, 55, 36-37, 60).
Regarding claim 42
Kovacs teaches:
where the test specification comprises a sequence of constituent specifications, where each constituent specification in the sequence of constituent specifications comprises a respective configuration to be applied at the wireless device during performing a test according to the constituent specification (¶ 33-38, 45-46).
Regarding claim 43
Kovacs teaches:
obtaining the test specification as a test specification comprising one or more specified events to be counted, wherein the test outcome comprises observed occurrences of the specified events (¶ 51, number of transport blocks observed; ¶ 32, time-traces of number of events; number of radio measurement events; see also ¶ 34-36).
Regarding claim 44
Kovacs teaches:
obtaining the test specification as a test specification comprising a target balance of a number of specified events, wherein the test outcome comprises an observed balance of the number of specified events (¶ 31-39).
Regarding claim 45
Kovacs teaches:
obtaining the test specification as a test specification comprising a sample AI structure related to the AI operation, wherein the test outcome comprises the sample AI structure trained on the data set (¶ 31,52-56, test outcome including training data).
Regarding claim 46
Kovacs teaches:
obtaining the test specification as a test specification comprising one or more conditions on any of: radio conditions at a physical layer (PHY) of the wireless device; radio conditions at a medium access control layer (MAC) of the wireless device, one or more properties of a radio link control (RLC) function of the wireless device; mobility data associated with the wireless device; and/or an age of data samples in a data set stored by the wireless device (¶ 19; see also 31-39, 42).
Regarding claim 47
Kovacs teaches:
receiving the test outcome from the wireless device periodically and/or according to a predetermined schedule and/or in response to the wireless device determining that the test outcome meets with a transmission acceptance criterion comprised in the test specification (¶ 39; see also ¶ 23, 31, 54).
Claims 48-49 and 56 are addressed by similar rationale as claim 37.
Regarding claim 50,
Kovacs teaches:
receiving an instruction from the network node to perform at least part of the Al operation based on the data set, and performing the at least part of the Al operation based on the data set (¶ 27, 32, 36, 39, 41, 45-46, 52-54).
Regarding claim 51,
Kovacs teaches:
obtaining the test specification as a test specification comprising instructions regarding the obtaining of the candidate data set (¶ 32-36, 51-54; see also 27, 39-46).
Regarding claim 52,
Kovacs teaches:
obtaining a configuration to be applied at the wireless device while performing the test defined by the test specification on the data set (¶ 31-32).
Regarding claim 53,
Kovacs teaches:
wherein the test specification comprises an acceptance criterion, and the method further comprises transmitting the test outcome to the network node in case the test outcome satisfies the acceptance criterion (¶ 39; see also ¶ 23, 31, 54).
Regarding claim 54,
Kovacs teaches:
transmitting a negative test outcome report to the network node in case the test outcome does not satisfy the acceptance criterion (¶ 36-39, failure results).
Regarding claim 55,
Kovacs teaches:
periodically generating a test outcome by performing the test defined by the test specification on a newly obtained data set (¶ 39; see also ¶ 23, 31, 54).
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20230164817 to Bhamri addressing AI capability reporting for wireless communication devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J JAKOVAC whose telephone number is (571)270-5003. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar A. Louie can be reached on 572-270-1684. 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.
/RYAN J JAKOVAC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
