DETAILED ACTION
The office action is a response to an application filed on December 02, 2024, wherein claims 1-16 and 19-22 are pending and ready for examination.
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 § 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)(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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ren et al. (Ren hereafter) (US 20240129759 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Ren teaches, An information transmission method performed by a first node (115-b),the information transmission method comprising (Ren; Fig. 3):
Sending (from the UE 115-b) first fallback request information to a third node or a second node ([0101] CU-CP 305 may further forward reports (e.g. model failure reports) from the UE 115-b to the model manager 310), wherein the first fallback request information comprises at least one of: a fallback reason, functional module information of a first fallback ([0096] indicate a status of an ML model 215, a detected failure of an ML model 215), falling back to a legacy mode, and a start time of the first fallback (Ren; [0096] configure the UE 115-a for ML model 215 monitoring, reporting, fallback, updating, or any combination thereof. For example, the ML configuration 220 may configure one or more triggers for a UE 115-a to transmit a report message 230 to the base station 105-a. The report message 230 may indicate a status of an ML model 215, a detected failure of an ML model 215, the report message 230 may indicate a fallback request or a fallback procedure such that the UE 115-a may maintain communication with one or more other devices [0101] The CU-CP 305 may further forward reports (e.g., model status reports, model failure reports) from the UE 115-b to the model manager 310 and may support ML model reconfiguration at the UE 115-b.).
Regarding claim 6 Ren teaches, An information transmission method performed by a second node or a third node, the information transmission method comprising:
sending first fallback indication information to a first node (Ren; [0109]the base station 105-b) may indicate one or more ML models to the UE 115-c for status reporting... with a model outage detection method), wherein the first fallback indication information comprises at least one of: functional module information of a third fallback (reduce a channel quality below a channel quality threshold), falling back to a legacy mode, and a start time of the third fallback (Ren; [0109]the base station 105-b) may indicate one or more ML models to the UE 115-c for status reporting. [0112] the network may configure the UE 115-c (e.g., via the base station 105-b) with a model outage detection method. The UE 115-c may monitor the status of an ML model used at the UE 115-c. In some cases, at 440, the UE 115-c may detect a failure of the ML model. The failure of the ML model may involve the ML model causing the UE 115-c to lose a connection with another wireless device, reduce a channel quality below a channel quality threshold, reduce the performance of the UE 115-c below a performance threshold, or some combination thereof).
Regarding claim 2 Ren teaches,The information transmission method according to claim 1,
Ren further teaches, wherein after the sending first fallback request information to a third node or a second node, the information transmission method further comprises: receiving first fallback confirmation information sent by the third node or the second node, wherein the first fallback confirmation information comprises at least one of: indication information regarding whether to accept the first fallback request information (Ren; [0101] Based on the ML configuration, the system may support tracking of a model status (e.g., using ML model monitoring at 335), configure and trigger ML model reporting at 340, configure and trigger ML model fallback at 345, configure and trigger ML model updating at 350, or some combination thereof. ML model fallback and updating may enable the UE 115-b to maintain a communication link if the performance of a downloaded ML model degrades (e.g., below a threshold).), a start time of a second fallback, functional module information of the second fallback, and falling back to the legacy mode.
Regarding claim 5 Ren teaches,The information transmission method according to claim 2,
Ren further teaches,wherein the functional module information comprises at least one of a name of a functional module (Ren; [0115] the UE 115-c may detect ML model failure based on a number of times that the ML model fails. For example, the reporting configuration may define a threshold number of failure instances and a timer duration);
an index of the functional module (Ren; [0118] At 465, in response to the trigger, the base station 105-b may transmit a configuration message to the UE 115-c configuring the UE 115-c to report an ML model status. The configuration message may include an ML model index indicating the ML model for status reporting, [0109-0110]);
version information of the functional module (Ren; [0115] the timer, the count value, or both may correspond to a specific ML model or may correspond across ML models at the UE 115-c or both. Based on the one or more metrics, the network may trigger an ML model status report.); and
a function realized by the functional module (Ren; [0099] For example, the UE 115-b may receive the ML model download from the model manager 310 (e.g., via the CU-CP 305), where the ML model download may include model information, a model status reporting configuration, or both. In some cases, the UE 115-b may transmit ML uplink information to the CU-CP 305, including the ML container and an indication that a neural network function is ready for operation at the UE 115-b).
Regarding claim 7 Ren teaches,The information transmission method according to claim 6, wherein after the sending first fallback indication information to a first node, the information transmission method further comprises:
Ren further teaches, receiving second fallback confirmation information sent by the first node, wherein the second fallback confirmation information comprises at least one of: a start time of a fourth fallback (Ren; [0115] the UE 115-c may activate the timer upon detecting a first failure for an ML model and may track a count value indicating a number of failure instances of the ML model. If the count value satisfies (e.g., equals or exceeds) the threshold number of failure instances before the timer expires, the UE 115-c may trigger a transmission of a report message),functional module information of the fourth fallback, and information indicating falling back to the legacy mode.
Regarding claim 8 Ren teaches,The information transmission method according to claim 7,
Ren further teaches,wherein the functional module information of the fourth fallback is obtained from the functional module information of the third fallback (Ren; [0117] if a performance loss of the UE 115-c satisfies a threshold performance loss, the network may trigger model status reporting from the UE 115-c (e.g., if the performance loss may potentially indicate an ML model failure at the UE 115-c). The network (e.g., via the base station 105-b) may configure and trigger the UE 115-c to report the ML model status (e.g., in a report message)).
Regarding claim 9 Ren teaches, The information transmission method according to claim 6,
Ren further teaches, further comprising: the functional module information of the third fallback comprises at least one piece of functional module information, wherein each of the at least one piece of functional module information comprises at least one of:
a name of a functional module(Ren; [0115] the UE 115-c may detect ML model failure based on a number of times that the ML model fails. For example, the reporting configuration may define a threshold number of failure instances and a timer duration);
an index of the functional module (Ren; [0118] At 465, in response to the trigger, the base station 105-b may transmit a configuration message to the UE 115-c configuring the UE 115-c to report an ML model status. The configuration message may include an ML model index indicating the ML model for status reporting, [0109-0110]);
version information of the functional module(Ren; [0115] the timer, the count value, or both may correspond to a specific ML model or may correspond across ML models at the UE 115-c or both. Based on the one or more metrics, the network may trigger an ML model status report.);a function realized by the functional module (Ren; [0099] For example, the UE 115-b may receive the ML model download from the model manager 310 (e.g., via the CU-CP 305), where the ML model download may include model information, a model status reporting configuration, or both. In some cases, the UE 115-b may transmit ML uplink information to the CU-CP 305, including the ML container and an indication that a neural network function is ready for operation at the UE 115-b).
Regarding claim 12 Ren teaches, The information transmission method according to claim 7,
Ren further teaches, further comprising: sending, in the second fallback confirmation information or in first functional module request information after the second fallback confirmation information, functional module information required by the first node (Ren; [0137] as being performed by the base station 105-g may be performed by another network entity. The base station 105-g may update an ML model at the UE 115-h, for example, in response to an ML model failing at the UE 115-h, a fallback procedure at the UE 115-h, or both.).
Regarding claim 13 Ren teaches,The information transmission method according to claim 12,
Ren further teaches, wherein the third node or-the second node sends response information for the functional module information required by the first node, wherein the response information comprises at least one of: the functional module information required by the first node (Ren; [0152] the communications manager 820 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for receiving, from a base station, ML model information defining a first ML model for the UE);
fallback start time of the functional module information required by the first node.
Regarding claim 14 Ren teaches,The information transmission method according to claim 6,
Ren further teaches, wherein the sending first fallback indication information to a first node comprises: sending the first fallback indication information to the first node through control information in a control channel (Ren; [0156] the transmitter 915 may transmit information such as packets, user data, control information, or any combination thereof associated with various information channels (e.g., control channels, data channels, information channels related to ML model reporting, fallback, and updating for wireless communications).).
Regarding claim 15 Ren teaches,The information transmission method according to claim 14, Ren further teaches, further comprising at least one of:
indicating, by using a format of control information, whether current control information is control information that triggers the first fallback indication information (Ren; [0124] The network may use network performance monitoring for making ML model fallback or switching decisions. In some cases, as will be described in greater detail below, the network can RRC/MAC-CE/DCI to
indicate fallback or switching (to another model), [0127]);
carrying the first fallback indication information in the control information in the control channel for sending.
Regarding claim 16 Ren teaches,The information transmission method according to claim 14,
Ren further teaches, further comprising: sending, by the second node, indication information, wherein the indication information is used for indicating whether the control information comprises the control information of the first fallback indication information ([0124] the fallback configuration message may include a bit indicating whether or not the UE 115-e is to fallback... the fallback configuration message may indicate the ML model from which to fallback (e.g., using an ML model index), a second mode to which to fallback).
Regarding claim 19 Ren teaches, A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, wherein the computer readable storage medium stores a computer program, and the computer program, when running on a processor, is configured to cause the processor to execute the information transmission method according to claim 1 (Ren; [0187] The memory 1130 may store computer-readable, computer-executable code 1135 including instructions that, when executed by the processor 1140, cause the device 1105 to perform various functions described herein. The code 1135 may be stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium such as system memory or another type of memory, Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 20 Ren teaches, An electronic apparatus, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and the processor is configured to run the computer program so as to execute the information transmission method according to claim 1 (Ren; Fig. 11 [0188] The processor 1140 may include an intelligent hardware device (e.g., a general-purpose processor, a DSP, a CPU, a microcontroller, an ASIC, an FPGA, a programmable logic device, a discrete gate or transistor logic component, a discrete hardware component, or any combination thereof). In some cases, the processor 1140 may be configured to operate a memory array using a memory controller).
Regarding claim 21 Ren teaches, A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, wherein the computer readable storage medium stores a computer program, and the computer program, when running on a processor, is configured to cause the processor to execute the information transmission method according to claim 6 (Ren; [0187] The memory 1130 may store computer-readable, computer-executable code 1135 including instructions that, when executed by the processor 1140, cause the device 1105 to perform various functions described herein. The code 1135 may be stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium such as system memory or another type of memory, Fig. 11).
.
Regarding claim 22 Ren teaches, An electronic apparatus, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and the processor is configured to run the computer program so as to execute the information transmission method according to claim 6 (Ren; Fig. 11 [0188] The processor 1140 may include an intelligent hardware device (e.g., a general-purpose processor, a DSP, a CPU, a microcontroller, an ASIC, an FPGA, a programmable logic device, a discrete gate or transistor logic component, a discrete hardware component, or any combination thereof). In some cases, the processor 1140 may be configured to operate a memory array using a memory controller).
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 3, 4, 10, and 11 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Chiang et al. (Chiang hereafter) (US 20190281506 A1).
Regarding claim 3 Ren teaches, The information transmission method according to claim 2, wherein after the receiving first fallback confirmation information sent by the third node or the second node, the information transmission method further comprises at least one of:
Ren fails to explicitly teach determining, in a case where the first fallback confirmation information comprises the functional module information of the second fallback, to use a functional module corresponding to the functional module information of the second fallback
determining, in a case where the first fallback confirmation information does not comprise the functional module information of the second fallback, to use a functional module corresponding to the functional module information of the first fallback;
falling back to the legacy mode;
However, in the same field of endeavor Chiang teaches, determining, in a case where the first fallback confirmation information does not comprise the functional module information of the second fallback, to use a functional module corresponding to the functional module information of the first fallback (Chiang; [0050] FIG. 1A illustrates that the IMS node can use an “inclusion/omission” technique to indicate which Fallback RATs 118 are authorized/not authorized, it is to be appreciated that the IMS node may utilize other techniques to respond with similar fallback information. For example, the SIP response 120—instead of omitting individual ones of the fallback indicators 116′—may include a set of fallback indicators 116″ that is the same exact set of fallback indicators 116′ included in the SIP request 114, along with corresponding answers (e.g., “yes” or “no”, “authorized” or “not authorized”, etc.) associated with each of the fallback indicators 116″ in the SIP response 120. As with the SIP request 114, the fallback indicators 116″ in the SIP response 120 may be implemented as feature tags, and the feature tags may be included in a header of the SIP response 120.);
falling back to the legacy mode (Chiang; [0036] The UE 102 may prefer to use the first RAT 108(1), when available, because it may offer the latest technology that provides advantages over other available RATs 108(2)-(M). Meanwhile, the UE 102 may consider any individual predecessor (or legacy) RAT (e.g., RATs 108(2)-(M)) to be a Fallback RAT 118 that, if supported by the UE 102, is available to reattempt a failed communication session. The fallback indicators 116′ that are included in the SIP request 114 may therefore correspond to the Fallback RATs 118,).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Ren to include the above recited limitations as taught by Chiang in order to reattempting to establish a communication session (Chiang; [0044]).
Regarding claim 4 Ren teaches,The information transmission method according to claim 2,
Ren fails to explicitly teach wherein the information transmission method further comprises at least one of:
in a case where the first fallback confirmation information comprises the start time of the second fallback, after the start time of the second fallback, using a functional module to communicate with the second node, or using the legacy mode to communicate with the second node or the third node
in a case where the first fallback confirmation information does not comprise the start time of the second fallback, after the start time of the first fallback, using a functional module to communicate with the second node, or using the legacy mode to communicate with the second node or the third node.
Chiang further teaches, in a case where the first fallback confirmation information comprises the start time of the second fallback, after the start time of the second fallback, using a functional module to communicate with the second node, or using the legacy mode to communicate with the second node or the third node (Chiang; [0044] FIG. 1B, the UE 102 is shown at a time when the UE 102 is reattempting to establish a communication session after a session failure during setup. In particular, after an initial attempt to establish a communication session using the RAT 108(1), which may be a preferred RAT (e.g., a 5G RAT), the UE 102 detects an issue that inhibits the communication session from being established using the RAT 108(1), which results in a failed communication session attempt 122. );
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Ren to include the above recited limitations as taught by Chiang in order to reattempting to establish a communication session (Chiang; [0044]).
Regarding claim 10 Ren teaches, The information transmission method according to claim 7,
Ren fails to explicitly teach wherein after the receiving second fallback confirmation information sent by the first node, the information transmission method further comprises at least one of:
determining, in a case where the second fallback confirmation information comprises the functional module information of the fourth fallback, to use a functional module corresponding to the functional module information of the fourth fallback;
determining, in a case where the second fallback confirmation information does not comprise the functional module information of the fourth fallback, to use a functional module corresponding to the functional module information of the third fallback; falling back to the legacy mode.
falling back to the legacy mode;
Chiang further teaches, determining, in a case where the second fallback confirmation information does not comprise the functional module information of the fourth fallback, to use a functional module corresponding to the functional module information of the third fallback (Chiang; [0050] FIG. 1A illustrates that the IMS node can use an “inclusion/omission” technique to indicate which Fallback RATs 118 are authorized/not authorized, it is to be appreciated that the IMS node may utilize other techniques to respond with similar fallback information. For example, the SIP response 120—instead of omitting individual ones of the fallback indicators 116′—may include a set of fallback indicators 116″ that is the same exact set of fallback indicators 116′ included in the SIP request 114, along with corresponding answers (e.g., “yes” or “no”, “authorized” or “not authorized”, etc.) associated with each of the fallback indicators 116″ in the SIP response 120. As with the SIP request 114, the fallback indicators 116″ in the SIP response 120 may be implemented as feature tags, and the feature tags may be included in a header of the SIP response 120.);
falling back to the legacy mode (Chiang; [0036] The UE 102 may prefer to use the first RAT 108(1), when available, because it may offer the latest technology that provides advantages over other available RATs 108(2)-(M). Meanwhile, the UE 102 may consider any individual predecessor (or legacy) RAT (e.g., RATs 108(2)-(M)) to be a Fallback RAT 118 that, if supported by the UE 102, is available to reattempt a failed communication session. The fallback indicators 116′ that are included in the SIP request 114 may therefore correspond to the Fallback RATs 118,).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Ren to include the above recited limitations as taught by Chiang in order to reattempting to establish a communication session (Chiang; [0044]).
Regarding claim 11 Ren- Chiang teaches, The information transmission method according to claim 10,
Ren fails to explicitly teach further comprising at least one of:
in a case where the second fallback confirmation information comprises the start time of the fourth fallback, after the start time of the fourth fallback, using the functional module to communicate with a-the second node, or using the legacy mode to communicate with the second node;
in a case where the second fallback confirmation information does not comprise the start time of the fourth fallback, after the start time of the third fallback, using the functional module to communicate with the second node, or using the legacy mode to communicate with the second node.
Chiang further teaches, in a case where the second fallback confirmation information comprises the start time of the fourth fallback, after the start time of the fourth fallback, using the functional module to communicate with a-the second node, or using the legacy mode to communicate with the second node (Chiang; [0044] FIG. 1B, the UE 102 is shown at a time when the UE 102 is reattempting to establish a communication session after a session failure during setup. In particular, after an initial attempt to establish a communication session using the RAT 108(1), which may be a preferred RAT (e.g., a 5G RAT), the UE 102 detects an issue that inhibits the communication session from being established using the RAT 108(1), which results in a failed communication session attempt 122);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Ren to include the above recited limitations as taught by Chiang in order to reattempting to establish a communication session (Chiang; [0044]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILFRED THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0353. The examiner can normally be reached Mon -Thurs 9:00 am-4:00 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, Noel R Beharry can be reached at 571-270-5630. 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.
/W. T/ Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights