DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Application # 19/298,832 was filed on 8/13/2025.
Claims 1-20 are subject to examination.
An IDS filed on 4/4/2026, 10/1/2025 has been fully considered and entered by the Examiner.
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 is directed to an abstract without significantly more. With respect to claim(s) 1, 16, they recite(s) obtaining model subscription information of a terminal and configuration restriction information of a first model which falls under mental processes which can be performed in the human mind wherein the model subscription information of the device and configuration restriction information of a model can be written on a piece of paper/manual; determining based on the model subscription information and configuration restriction information, whether the subject terminal device is allowed to be configured with the first model which can be performed in the human mind wherein one of ordinary skill in the art can be read/review the written information of the first model and see if the device is compatible based on the written information. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites one additional element using a device/processor to perform both steps of obtaining and determining. The device and processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of processor/device to perform both steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. These claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 8, it recite(s) receiving a request for requesting to register a first model with model management network element which falls under mental processes which can be performed in the human mind wherein request can be received on a written on a piece of paper for registering a first model; sending configuration restriction information of the first model to a network device which indicates a subject terminal device that is allowed to be configured with the first model which can be performed in the human mind wherein one of ordinary skill in the art can be read/review the written information of the first model and see if the device is compatible based on the written information, thereby allowed to be configured with the first model. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites one additional element using a device/processor to perform both steps of obtaining and determining. The device and processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of processor/device to perform both steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 2-7, 9-15, 17-20, they recite similar abstract idea which falls under mental process which can be performed in a human mind. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites one additional element using a device/processor to perform both steps of obtaining and determining. The device and processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of processor/device to perform both steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. These claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhuang et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2023/0043111 (hereinafter Zhuang) in view of Onno et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2024/0187959 (hereinafter Onno)
With respect to claim 1, Zhuang teaches a communication method, comprising:
-obtaining model information of a subject terminal device (i.e. first machine learning model information, first preprocessing model information) and configuration restriction information of a first model (i.e. first error model information)(Paragraph 27-30), wherein the model information indicates a model that is allowed to be configured for the subject terminal device (i.e. machine learning model or deep neural network model)(Paragraph 29-31), the configuration restriction information indicates an identified terminal device that is allowed to be configured with the first model, and the first model is an artificial intelligence (AI) model (i.e. machine learning)(Paragraph 30-31); and
-determining, based on the model information and the configuration restriction information, whether the subject terminal device is allowed to be configured with the first model (Paragraph 41, 48).
Zhuang teaches model information, but does not explicitly state model subscription information.
Onno teaches model subscription information (Paragraph 4), wherein the model subscription information indicates a model that is allowed to be configured for the subject terminal device (i.e. selecting an AI/ML model for event based on model subscription information) (Paragraph 4); determining based on the model subscription information, whether the subject terminal device is allowed to be configured with the first model (Paragraph 72-96). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Onno’s teaching in Zhuang’s teaching to come up with having model subscription information indicating a model that is allowed to be configured. The motivation for doing would be to subscribe to model therefore an event model can run the AI/ML algorithm (Paragraph 66).
With respect to claim 2, Zhuang and Onno teaches the communication method according to claim 1, but Zhuang further teaches wherein the determining, based on the model information and the configuration restriction information, whether the subject terminal device is allowed to be configured with the first model comprises: in response to the subject terminal device indicated by the configuration restriction information being the subject terminal device, and the model indicated by the model information comprising the first model, determining that the subject terminal device is allowed to be configured with the first model (Paragraph 29-31, 41, 48)
Onno teaches model subscription information (Paragraph 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Onno’s teaching in Zhuang’s teaching to come up with having model subscription information. The motivation for doing would be to subscribe to model therefore an event model can run the AI/ML algorithm (Paragraph 66).
With respect to claim 3, Zhuang and Onno teaches the method according to claim 1, but Zhuang further teaches further comprising: receiving indication information from the subject terminal device, wherein the indication information indicates at least one of that the subject terminal device has been configured with the first model (Paragraph 60-65) or a state of the first model, and the state is an active state (Paragraph 67) or an inactive state; or the indication information indicates that the subject terminal device has not been configured with the first model.
With respect to claim 4, Zhuang and Onno teaches the communication method according to claim 3, but Zhuang further teaches further comprising: in response to the subject terminal device is allowed to be configured with the first model (Paragraph 60-65) and the subject terminal device not being configured with the first model, sending (i.e. updating) model information of the first model to the subject terminal device (Paragraph 82, 88)
With respect to claim 5, Zhuang and Onno teaches the communication method according to claim 4, but Zhuang further teaches wherein the model information comprises model identification information and model management information (Paragraph 176-177); and the model identification information comprises at least one of identification information of the first model or identification information of a model function of the first model (Paragraph 176-77); and the model management information comprises at least one of model running information of the first model or model feature information of the first model (Paragraph 176-177)
With respect to claim 6, Zhuang and Onno teaches the communication method according to claim 3, but Zhuang further teaches wherein the method further comprises: in response to the subject terminal device being allowed to be configured with the first model, and the subject terminal device being configured with the first model bin the inactive state (Paragraph 123-124), sending an activation indication to the subject terminal device, wherein the activation indication indicates to activate the first model (Paragraph 124-126)
With respect to claim 7, Zhuang and Onno teaches the method according to claim 1, but Zhuang further teaches wherein the configuration restriction information comprises at least one information: information about the identified subject terminal device (Paragraph 24-25, 203), information about at least one subject terminal device manufacturer, or information about at least one chip manufacturer.
With respect to claim 16, Zhuang teaches a communication apparatus, comprising:-a processor; a memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the communication apparatus to:
-obtain model subscription information of a subject terminal device (i.e. first machine learning model information, first preprocessing model information) and configuration restriction information of a first model (i.e. first error model information)(Paragraph 27-30), wherein the model information indicates a model that is allowed to be configured for the subject terminal device (i.e. machine learning model or deep neural network model)(Paragraph 29-31), the configuration restriction information indicates a subject terminal device that is allowed to be configured with the first model, and the first model is an artificial intelligence (AI) model (i.e. machine learning)(Paragraph 30-31); and
-determine, based on the model information and the configuration restriction information, whether the subject terminal device is allowed to be configured with the first model (Paragraph 41, 48).
Zhuang teaches model information, but does not explicitly state model subscription information.
Onno teaches model subscription information (Paragraph 4), wherein the model subscription information indicates a model that is allowed to be configured for the subject terminal device (i.e. selecting an AI/ML model for event based on model subscription information) (Paragraph 4); determining based on the model subscription information, whether the subject terminal device is allowed to be configured with the first model (Paragraph 72-96). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Onno’s teaching in Zhuang’s teaching to come up with having model subscription information indicating a model that is allowed to be configured. The motivation for doing so would be to subscribe to model therefore an event model can run the AI/ML algorithm (Paragraph 66).
With respect to claims 17-20 respectively, they recite similar subject matter as claims 2-5 respectively, therefore rejected under same basis.
Claim(s) 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pestana et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2022/0198336 (hereinafter Pestana) in view of Dukatz et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2017/0339021 (hereinafter Dukatz)
With respect to claim 8, Pestana teaches a communication method, comprising:
-receiving a request message from a subject terminal device, wherein the request message is for requesting to register a first model with model management network element, and the first model is an artificial intelligence (AI) model (i.e. Sending a registration message to model management element maintaining the model-provider register. The registration message is used to register machine learning models with the broker component))(Paragraph 67-70, 4); and
Pestana does not explicitly teach sending configuration restriction information of the first model to a network device, wherein the configuration restriction information indicates an identified subject terminal device that is allowed to be configured with the first model.
Dukatz teaches sending configuration restriction information of the first model to a network device, wherein the configuration restriction information indicates a subject terminal device that is allowed to be configured with the first model (Paragraph 35-38, 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Dukatz’s teaching in Pestana’s teaching to come up with sending configuration restriction information of the first model to a network device wherein configuration restriction information includes a subject terminal device that is allowed to be configured with the first model. The motivation for doing so would be to generate and transmit device-specific executable instructions to the selected device for installation and execution.
With respect to claim 9, Pestana and Dukatz teaches the communication method according to claim 8, but Dukatz further teaches further comprising: determining the configuration restriction information (Paragraph 35-38, 40).
With respect to claim 10, Pestana and Dukatz teaches the communication method according to claim 9, but Dukatz further teaches wherein the request message comprises indication information, and the indication information indicates that the first model has a usage range (Paragraph 30); and the configuration restriction information is determined based on the indication information (Paragraph 35-38, 40)
With respect to claim 11, Pestana and Dukatz teaches the communication method according to claim 8, but Pestana further teaches further comprising: generating, for the first model, model identification information of the first model, wherein the model identification information identifies the first model (Paragraph 54-55)
With respect to claim 12, Pestana and Dukatz teaches the communication method according to claim 11, but Pestana further teaches further comprising: sending the model identification information to the network device (Paragraph 54)
With respect to claim 13, Pestana and Dukatz teaches the communication method according to claim 11, but Pestana further teaches wherein the model identification information comprises at least one of identification information of the first model (Paragraph 71-73) or identification information of a model function of the first model.
With respect to claim 14, Pestana and Dukatz teaches the communication method according to claim 8, but Pestana further teaches wherein the request message comprises model management information of the first model (Paragraph 60), and the model management information comprises at least one of model running information of the first model or model feature information of the first model (Paragraph 60-64)
With respect to claim 15, Pestana and Dukatz teaches the communication method according to claim 8, but Pestana further teaches wherein the configuration restriction information comprises at least one of: information about the identified subject terminal device (Paragraph 20-21), information about at least one subject terminal device manufacturer, or information about at least one chip manufacturer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A). Diffloth et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 20240171558.
B). Cochran et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2023/0360778.
C). VanSickel et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2023/0156296.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DHAIRYA A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5809. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached at 571-272-5863. 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.
DHAIRYA A. PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2453
/DHAIRYA A PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights