DETAILED ACTION
Notice
This previous Non-Final office action mailed on 7/7/2025 is hereby vacated and replaced with the following:
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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention of claims 1 and 11 is directed to a method and device without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a wtru and method for receiving an associated ID which includes sub-associated IDs which represent functionality or transmission “hierarchy”, represent a network condition, based on indicating of the sub-associated IDs to determine if associated ID is full or partial applicability and applying the associated ID based on the result of determining. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the configuration information which includes a hierarchy level of ID and determining if the top level is partial or full in order to apply ID. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they can perform mental by Human.
As claims 2 and 12, these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they only includes determining the applicability based on message.
As claims 3 and 13, these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they only mapping TRP condition to sub-associated ID.
As claims 4 and 14, these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they only state another hierarchy in the message.
As claims 5 and 15, these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they only report a mapping between sub-associated ID with AI/ML.
As claims 6 and 16, these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they only perform a comparing to number of applicable sub-associated IDs with threshold for determining applicable associated ID.
As claims 7 and 17, these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they only determine that the AIML model is applicable with respect to a first sub-associated ID based on comparing the evaluating of performance of AI/ML and threshold.
As claims 8 and 18, these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they only apply an artificial intelligence / machine learning (AIML) model for the functionality and the transmission scenario based on the applicability corresponding to full applicability; and apply the AIML model for one of the functionality or the transmission scenario based on the applicability corresponding to partial applicability
As claims 9 and 19, these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they only discloses a first sub-associated ID of the set of sub-associated IDs represents a first configuration for training an artificial intelligence / machine learning (AIML) model and a second sub-associated ID of the set of sub-associated IDs represents a second configuration for inference using the AIML model.
As claims 10 and 20, these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they only map a first sub-associated ID of the set of sub-associated IDs corresponds to a first artificial intelligence / machine learning (AIML) model, wherein a second sub-associated ID of the set of sub-associated IDs corresponds to a second AIML model at the WTRU.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tarip [US 2025/0267074] discloses a method including determining one or more hierarchical levels associated with one or more machine learning (ML) models deployed in wireless communication networks, and generating one or more identifications (IDs) of the one or more ML models based on the one or more hierarchical levels. The one or more IDs of the one or more ML models indicate a network function associated with the one or more IDs, a ML model structure, a ML model delivery format, or a combination thereof.
Kurmar [US 2026/0075476] discloses techniques for inter-node relationship information indication for artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML)-based mobility. An example method, performed at a user equipment (UE), generally includes receiving signaling configuring the UE with (i) measurement resources, (ii) prediction target resources, and (iii) topological information for a set of cells and beams, and participating in mobility procedures involving a machine learning (ML) model and predictions for the prediction target resources, based on the topological information and measurements taken for the measurement resources.
Soni [US 2025/0385843] discloses An apparatus, such as a user equipment (UE), receives one or more of: an indication, from a first network equipment (NE), of one or more validity criterion for a portion of network context information for a second network equipment, or identifiers for the portion of the network context information for the second network equipment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HIEU D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3159. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at 571-272-7884. 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.
/STEVEN HIEU D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights