DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendments filed on 10/21/2025.
Claims 1 and 11 currently amended.
Claims 2 and 12 currently cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
In reference to Applicant’s arguments on page(s) 7-8 regarding rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101:
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-20 (of these, claims l and 11 are independent) under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as allegedly being directed to a judicial exception of statutory subject matter, particularly, an abstract idea.
Independent claims 1 and 11 are amended in a manner believed to overcome the rejections of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20.
By using the composite time, the federate learning time and the execution time of the quantization selection procedure can be used to reduce delays due to impairments at edge nodes. (See [0005] of the specification as originally filed.) Further, by selecting a respective quantization procedure, a proper quantization procedure can be selected so as to increase accuracy in quantization. (See [0006] of the specification.) As such, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1 and 11 are patent eligible and dependent claims thereof are likewise patent eligible.
Claims 2 and 12 are cancelled, rendering the rejections of claims 2 and 12 moot.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are found to be not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the use of different timings in selecting the quantization procedure can be used to “reduce delays due to impairments at edge nodes”. Examiner disagrees. The inclusion of the specific timings and the composite time just serve as mathematical calculations, and the calculations are more easily reproduceable by the human mind because the distinct variables used for the calculations are presented.
Applicant argues that the selection of a specific quantization procedure can increase accuracy in quantization. Examiner disagrees. The selection of the particular quantization procedure as presented in the instant application has nothing to do with how that procedure can improve the accuracy of the quantization. The selection process of Applicant’s disclosure is simply based on a cutoff threshold, which is subsequently based on an identified outlier boundary and the previously mentioned calculated composite time.
In light of the amendments made on the claims, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained and updated below.
In reference to Applicant’s arguments on page(s) 8-10 regarding rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103:
The Office Action rejected claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11, 13-17, and 19 (of these, claims 1 and 11 are independent) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over various combinations of two or more of Zheng (NPL "A Distributed Hierarchical Deep Computation Model for Federated Learning in Edge Computing"), Ghosh (NPL "Robust Federated Learning in a Heterogeneous Environment"), Zhou (NPL "CEFL: Online Admission Control, Data Scheduling, and Accuracy Tuning for Cost-Efficient Federated k’;Learning Across Edge Nodes"), Seide (NPL "1-bit stochastic gradient descent and its application to data-parallel distributed training of speech DNNs") and Li (NPL "Inspecting the Running Process of Horizontal Federated Learning via Visual Analytics"). For at least the reasons set forth below, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejections should be withdrawn.
Zheng, Ghosh, Zhou, Seide, and Li fail to teach or suggest at least the above- recited features of independent claims 1 and 11.
The Office Action acknowledged that "Zheng + Ghosh + Zhou does not distinctly disclose [] an execution time of a quantization selection procedure ...." (See Page 20.) Thus, it follows that Zheng, Ghosh, and Zhou fail to teach or suggest "the composite time comprises a sum of a federated learning time and an execution time of the quantization selection procedure, in which each edge node selects a respective quantization procedure from among a group of quantization procedures;... defining a cutoff threshold based on the outlier boundary and the composite time;... running, at the selected edge nodes, the quantization selection procedure, wherein every non selected edge node does not run the quantization selection procedure" (emphasis added), as recited in independent claims 1 and 11.
Seide fails to cure the deficiencies of Zheng, Ghosh, and Zhou. Seide discloses 1-bit stochastic gradient descent (SGD) at its application to data-parallel distributed training of speech DNNs (see Title). Specifically, regarding the execution time of the quantization selection procedure, the Office Action stated the following from Seide:
We have shown that 1-bit quantization allows to significantly reduce data- exchange bandwidth for data-parallel SGD at no or nearly no loss of accuracy, making data-parallel distribution of SGD feasible even with modern fast hardware (GPUs). (Page 21.)
As best understood by Applicant, the Office Action appeared to consider the data exchange reduction time for data-parallel SGD, as disclosed by Seide, as the execution time of the quantization selection procedure of independent claims 1 and 11. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Since Seide nowhere discloses the quantization selection procedure, in which each edge node selects a quantization procedure among quantization procedures, Seide likewise nowhere discloses the execution time of the quantization selection procedure. Thus, Seide fails to teach or suggest the above-recited features of independent claims 1 and 11.
Li is not relied upon by the Office Action to cure the deficiencies of Zheng, Ghosh, Zhou, and Seide. Thus, Zheng, Ghosh, Zhou, Seide, and Li fail to teach or suggest every element of independent claims 1 and 11. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1 and 11 are patentable.
Claims 3-10 depend from independent claim 1, and claims 13-20 depend from independent claim 11. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that these dependent claims are also patentable over Zheng, Ghosh, Zhou, Seide, and Li for at least the same reasons set forth above with respect to independent claims 1 and 11.
Claims 2 and 12 are cancelled, rendering the rejections of claims 2 and 12 moot.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be withdrawn.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive over the amendments made on the claims.
Applicant argues that since Zheng + Ghosh + Zhou does not distinctly disclose an execution time of a quantization selection procedure, that the same combination of references fails to disclose any newly amended limitations that rely on said execution time as a part of that limitation. Examiner agrees. The combination of prior art references, upon further review, fail to disclose any mention of an execution time of a quantization procedure and also does not teach the selection of a quantization procedure on a per node basis.
Applicant argues that the addition of Seide does not remedy the deficiencies of Zheng + Ghosh + Zhou and is also misinterpreted as teaching an execution time of the quantization selection procedure. Examiner agrees. It is clear to the Examiner now that the data exchange reduction time for data-parallel SGD presented in Seide is not analogous to the quantization procedure selection execution time of the instant application.
In light of the arguments presented and the amendments made on the independent claims, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 analysis: Independent Claim 1 recites, in part, a method, therefore falling into the statutory category of process. Independent Claim 11 recites, in part, a non-transitory storage medium having stored therein instructions that are executable by one or more hardware processors to perform operations, therefore falling into the statutory category of manufacture.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 1 recites in part:
“using historical statistics from the edge node”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses using historical data.
“calculating a composite time for each of the edge nodes, wherein the composite time comprises a sum of a federated learning time and an execution time of the quantization selection procedure, in which each edge node selects a respective quantization procedure from among a group of quantization procedures”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mathematical calculation.
“identifying an outlier boundary”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses identifying an outlier in data.
“defining a cutoff threshold based on the outlier boundary and the composite time”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses deciding a cutoff value based on an outlier in data and a calculated time.
“selecting, for sampling, one or more edge nodes from the edge nodes that are at or below the cutoff threshold”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses selecting data that is at or below a cutoff value.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“running an edge node sampling algorithm using a parameter 's' that specifies a number of edge nodes, which are to run a quantization selection procedure, to be sampled”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (running a sampling algorithm) i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
“running, at the selected edge nodes, the quantization selection procedure, wherein every non-selected edge node does not run the quantization selection procedure”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (running a sampling algorithm) i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “running an edge node sampling algorithm using a parameter 's' that specifies a number of edge nodes, which are to run a quantization selection procedure, to be sampled” and “running, at the selected edge nodes, the quantization selection procedure, wherein every non-selected edge node does not run the quantization selection procedure” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (running a sampling algorithm) i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 3:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:Claim 3 recite in part:
“wherein the quantization selection procedure identifies a quantization procedure that meets one or more established parameters”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses making sure that a procedure meets established parameters.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 4:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 4 recites in part:
“wherein when the quantization procedure is run, the quantization procedure operates to quantize a gradient generated by one of the edge nodes”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mathematical calculation.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 5:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the gradient comprises information about performance of a federated learning process at one of the edge nodes”. This additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein the gradient comprises information about performance of a federated learning process at one of the edge nodes” is/are recited at a high level of generality and amount(s) to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. 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, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 6:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 6 recites in part:
“wherein quantization of the gradient comprises compression of the gradient”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mathematical calculation.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 7:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 7 recites in part:
“wherein the outlier boundary is identified using a boxplot”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses looking at a boxplot and identifying an outlier.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 8:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 8 recites in part:
“wherein the cutoff threshold is a maximum permissible composite time”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses identifying a maximum time and making that a threshold value.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 9:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the operations are performed at a central node that communicates with the edge nodes”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (federated learning) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein the operations are performed at a central node that communicates with the edge nodes” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (federated learning) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 10:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 10 recites in part:
“wherein the edge nodes are non-randomly sampled”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses making sure the edge nodes are not randomly chosen for sampling.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 11:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 1, Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 1, with the exception of the limitation(s) covered below.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“A non-transitory storage medium having stored therein instructions that are executable by one or more hardware processors to perform operations”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (memory and processor) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “A non-transitory storage medium having stored therein instructions that are executable by one or more hardware processors to perform operations” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 13:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 3, Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 14:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 4, Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 15:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 5, Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 16:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 6, Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 17:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 7, Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 18:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 8, Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 19:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 9, Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 20:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 10, Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20250217204 A1 – Methods and apparatus for computing resource allocation in a collaborative ML system
US 20250209383 A1 – systems and methods of using one or more knowledge graphs to track and enforce data sharing conditions for federated learning
US 20230232377 A1 – communication systems, and more particularly, to a federated learning with over-the-air (OTA) aggregation in a wireless communication system
US 20230197230 A1 – Systems and methods for adverse reaction detection
US 20230125509 A1 – gathering of data for training and refining a machine learning model
US 20230037308 A1 – deploying a distributed machine learning framework in an edge computing environment
WO 2023287392 A1 – a novel, resource-efficient approach for learning image representation with federated learning, which can be referred to as federated sampled SoftMax
US 20230017542 A1 – a federated learning system for aggregating gradient information representing a result of training an AI model in an edge device
US 20220101206 A1 – one or more processors to generate measurement matrices for a plurality of edge devices in a federated learning system
US 11017322 B1 – Methods, systems, and apparatuses, including computer programs encoded on computer storage media, for federal learning with differentially private (DP) intrinsic quantization
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COREY M SACKALOSKY whose telephone number is (703)756-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-3:30pm EST.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at (571) 272-2589. 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.
/COREY M SACKALOSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128