DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the RCE filed on 04/22/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 18 are currently amended.
Claims 21 and 22 are newly added.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22 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 Office Action rejected claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is allegedly directed to non-statutory subject matter and/or a judicial exception.
These technical problems could be addressed with the above-recited features of independent claims 1 and 11. Specifically, using the boxplot, the outlier boundary and the cutoff threshold can be identified, and one or more edge nodes are identified based on the cutoff threshold. By instructing the selected edge nodes and not non-selected edge nodes to perform the quantization selection procedure, statistics data only from the selected edge nodes can be transmitted, thereby reducing the whole bandwidth for the transmission. Thus, this "approach may reduce the communication overheads, which may be important for the central node in particular." (1 [0088].) Thus, the technical problems could be addressed by the above-recited features and independent claims 1 and 11 are believed to integrate the alleged abstract idea, if there is any, into a practical application. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1 and 11 are patent eligible.
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 patent eligible for at least the same reasons set forth above with respect to independent claims 1 and 11.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 1, 3-11, and 13- 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.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 amendments made to the claims present a technological improvement. Examiner disagrees. By Applicant’s own admission in [0088] it is stated that the presented approach may reduce the communication overheads of the system. There is no definitive evidence that the given approach does reduce the overhead, just that it might in some instances.
Applicant argues that the use of a boxplot is novel in that it can enable the identification of outliers and therefore be used to identify a cutoff boundary. Examiner disagrees. Outlier identification is inherent to the nature of boxplots. That is, once the whiskers are denoted to be some value of the IQR of the plot, any data points outside those whiskers are outliers. The inclusion of the boxplot to identify outliers in a dataset can be characterized as simply looking at the plot and identifying any data points that lie outside the whiskers of the plot, therefore being outliers.
In light of the amendments made on the claims, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained and updated below.
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 13-22 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 the historical statistics”. 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”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mathematical calculation.
“identifying an outlier boundary from the composite times 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 identifying an outlier in data based on a graphical representation of the dataset.
“defining a cutoff threshold based on the outlier boundary and the composite times”. 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:
“storing, at a central node, historical statistics from edge nodes over a plurality of federated learning cycles”. 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.
“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.
“transmitting an instruction causing the selected edge nodes and not non-selected edge nodes to run the quantization selection procedure”. 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.
“receiving, from the selected edge nodes, statistics data from the quantization selection procedure”. 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.
“selecting, at the central node and based on the statistics data received from the selected edge nodes, a quantization procedure to be used by the edge nodes in a subsequent federated learning cycle”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (selecting a quantization procedure) 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.
The additional element(s) of “storing, at a central node, historical statistics from edge nodes over a plurality of federated learning cycles”, “transmitting an instruction causing the selected edge nodes and not non-selected edge nodes to run the quantization selection procedure”, and “receiving, from the selected edge nodes, statistics data from the quantization selection procedure” 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").
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 “selecting, at the central node and based on the statistics data received from the selected edge nodes, a quantization procedure to be used by the edge nodes in a subsequent federated learning cycle” 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 and selecting a quantization procedure) 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 comprises, at each selected edge node, evaluating a plurality of quantization procedures and identifying 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 the quantization selection procedure comprises, for each of the plurality of quantization procedures, quantizing a gradient generated by the selected 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 the 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.
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 8 recites in part:
“wherein the cutoff threshold is δ = Q3 + 1.5*IQR + ε”. 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 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.
Regarding Claim 21:
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 outlier boundary is identified based on Q3 + 1.5*IQR, where Q3 is a third quartile and IQR is an interquartile range of the boxplot”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (statistical graphs) 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 outlier boundary is identified based on Q3 + 1.5*IQR, where Q3 is a third quartile and IQR is an interquartile range of the boxplot” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (statistical graphs) (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 22:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 21, Claim 22 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 21.
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
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 SACKALOSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/BRIAN M SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights