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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This office action is in response to the original filing of 09/20/2022. Claim 1-36 are canceled and claims 37-56 are pending and have been considered below.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to because of the following informality (metripolitan Traffic Services Cloud) item 20 of fig. 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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 37-48 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A – Is the claim directed to a judicial exception?
Prong 1: (Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?)
Independent claim 37 recites the limitations “determining a first set, of the first plurality of nodes, for handling of a prediction of an event in the communication network, wherein the determining is based on the following: a first pattern of arrival of service requests …, a second pattern in a variance of data …, a first measure of similarity in a distribution pattern of data…, and a second measure of entropy of the data…” can be performed via mind.
One can mentally evaluate a first pattern of arrival of service requests, a second pattern in a variance of data …, a first measure of similarity in a distribution pattern of data…, and a second measure of entropy of the data, to determine node for handing a prediction of an event.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
“..service requests received over a first period of time by the first plurality of nodes from a plurality of computing device clients, …data collected for the service requests of a different type received over a second period of time by a second plurality of nodes in the communications system, …data collected by the nodes of the first plurality over the first period of time, about the service requests received of a same type, and …data collected by the nodes in the first plurality of nodes over the first period of time, about the service requests received, and sending a first indication to the nodes of the determined first set, wherein the first indication indicates that the respective nodes belong to the first set for handling of a prediction of an event in the communication network” are all insignificant extra solution activities.
This limitation recites the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g). However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Even when viewed in combination, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional elements limitations from prong II are all insignificant extra solution activities which are well understood routine and conventional activities. For Berkhiemer see (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 37 is not eligible.
As per claim 46
Step 2A – Is the claim directed to a judicial exception?
Prong 1: (Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?)
Independent claims 46 recites “determining a vote for one of the first set of nodes to be candidate for leader node, of the first set, for handling of a prediction of an event in the communication system, wherein determining the vote is based on at least one of the following with respect to the candidate: available energy resources, average uptime, available computing power, computing latency, a communication constraint, the communication constraint being based on an energy cost and a number of connections of the candidate with the other nodes in the first set of nodes, and a probability of state change of the candidate” as drafted, the claim is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
“sending, to the nodes of the first set, a second indication of the determined vote; and “sending, to the nodes of the first set, a third indication indicating that a third node is the leader node of the first set, wherein the third indication is based on the second indication sent to the nodes of the first set.” insignificant extra-solution activity.
This limitation recites the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g). However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Even when viewed in combination, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional elements “sending, to the nodes of the first set, a second indication of the determined vote; and “sending, to the nodes of the first set, a third indication indicating that a third node is the leader node of the first set, wherein the third indication is based on the second indication sent to the nodes of the first set.” from prong II are all insignificant extra solution activities which are well understood routine and conventional activities. For Berkhiemer see (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 46 is not eligible.
Claim 55 recites the additional elements “communication interface circuitry configured to communicate with other nodes of the communication system; and processing circuitry operably coupled to the communication interface circuitry, whereby the processing circuitry and the communication interface circuitry” amount 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 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 55 is substantially similar to claim 46 and not eligible.
Claim 38 recites the additional elements “wherein determining the first set of nodes is performed by analyzing data from every two nodes in the first plurality of nodes at a time” amount to of mere data gathering and can be considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g). However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 39 recites the additional elements “wherein determining the first set of nodes is further based on at least one of the following: a maximum number of nodes allowed to belong to the first set of nodes, and a geographical location the nodes in the first plurality of nodes have to have to be eligible to belong to the first set of nodes” amount to of mere data gathering and can be considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g). However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 40 recites the additional elements “wherein determining the first set of nodes comprises determining respective weights for the first pattern, the second pattern, the first measure, and the second measure” amount to a mental process of analyzing a schema using evaluation and judgement performed mentally by a human.
Claim 41 recites the additional elements “wherein determining the first set of nodes further comprises creating an adjacency matrix (M) from a network graph that is based on the determined respective weights” amount to of mere data gathering and can be considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g). However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 42 recites the additional elements “wherein determining the first set of nodes further comprises performing an agglomerative hierarchical clustering by considering a respective distance between the respective weights in the adjacency matrix (M)” amount to of mere data gathering and can be considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g). However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 43 recites the additional elements “further comprising receiving, from the first plurality of nodes, respective first information regarding: the arrival of the service requests received over the first period of time, the data collected for the service requests received by the second plurality of nodes, and the data collected by the first plurality of nodes over the first period of time, about the service requests received” amount to of mere data gathering and can be considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g). However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 44 recites the additional elements “further comprising receiving, from a further node of the communications system, second information regarding the service requests received over the second period of time” amount to of mere data gathering and can be considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g). However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 45 recites the additional elements “wherein: the communications system comprises multiple pluralities of nodes hierarchically organized in a plurality of node layers; and determining the first set of nodes is based on a restriction that all node of the first plurality must belong to a same node layer” amount to of mere data gathering and can be considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g). However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 47 recites the additional elements “receiving, from a first node of the communications system, a first indication indicating that the second node is part of the first set of nodes, wherein the determining the vote is responsive to the first indication” which amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and is well understood routine and conventional activities. For Berkhiemer see (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362). Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 48 recites the additional elements “receiving, from all other nodes of the first set, respective votes for one of the first set of nodes to be candidate for leader node, of the first set, for handling of a prediction of an event in the communication network; and based on the received votes, determining the third node to be the leader node for the first set of nodes.” which amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and are well understood routine and conventional activities. For Berkhiemer see (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362). Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 37-48 and 54-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Lung et al Using hierarchical agglomerative clustering in wireless sensor networks: An energy-efficient and flexible approach (October 2, 2009) Hereinafter Lung.
Claim 37. Lung discloses a method performed by a first node operating in a communications system comprising a first plurality of nodes, the method comprising: determining a first set, of the first plurality of nodes, for handling of a prediction of an event in the communication network, wherein the determining is based on the following: a first pattern of arrival of service requests received over a first period of time by the first plurality of nodes from a plurality of computing device clients (Components are the nodes that we want to group based on their similarities. Nodes exchange HELLO messages and obtain neighbor nodes’ attributes. Attributes are the properties of the components such as the location of nodes, the RSS, the connectivity of nodes, or other features) (p.332, section 3.1), a second pattern in a variance of data collected for the service requests of a different type received over a second period of time by a second plurality of nodes in the communications system (Table 1a, the location information is used as the quantitative input data. Table 1b uses the one-hop network connectivity data as the qualitative input data, where the ‘‘1” value represents a one-hop connection and the ‘‘0” value represents no direct connection.) (p.332, section 3.1), a first measure of similarity (resemblance) in a distribution pattern of data collected by the nodes of the first plurality over the first period of time, about the service requests received of a same type (p. 332, sections 3.2-3.3), and a second measure of entropy (mutual information) of the data collected by the nodes in the first plurality of nodes over the first period of time, about the service requests received (Nodes exchange HELLO messages and obtain neighbor nodes’ attributes) (section 3.1) [wherein neighbor attributes constitute mutual information while exchanging messages], and sending a first indication to the nodes of the determined first set, wherein the first indication indicates that the respective nodes belong to the first set for handling of a prediction of an event (cluster head) in the communication network (collect input data and set up the local resemblance matrix, in the beginning, each node elects itself as a cluster head and exchanges the information via HELLO messages with its neighbors) (p.333, section 4.1.1)[wherein CH is ready to lead communication event].
Claim 38. Lung discloses the method according to claim 37, wherein determining the first set of nodes is performed by analyzing data from every two nodes in the first plurality of nodes at a time (..resemblance coefficient for a given pair of nodes indicates the degree of similarity or dissimilarity between these two nodes. It could be quantitative (e.g., location, RSS) or qualitative (e.g., connectivity)) (p. 332, section 3.2).
Claim 39. Lung discloses the method according to claim 37, wherein determining the first set of nodes is further based on at least one of the following: a maximum number of nodes allowed to belong to the first set of nodes (An input data set for HAC is a component–attribute data matrix. Components are the nodes that we want to group based on their similarities. Nodes exchange HELLO messages and obtain neighbor nodes’ attributes….) (p. 332, section 3.1), and a geographical location the nodes in the first plurality of nodes have to have to be eligible to belong to the first set of nodes.
Claim 40. Lung discloses the method according to claim 37, wherein determining the first set of nodes comprises determining respective weights for the first pattern, the second pattern, the first measure, and the second measure (p. 331, section 2.2.2.6, section 3.3 weighted pair-group)
Claim 41. Lung discloses the method according to claim 40, wherein determining the first set of nodes further comprises creating an adjacency matrix (M) from a network graph that is based on the determined respective weights (p. 332, section 3.3).
Claim 42. Lung discloses the method according to claim 41, wherein determining the first set of nodes further comprises performing an agglomerative hierarchical clustering by considering a respective distance between the respective weights in the adjacency matrix (M) (p. 331, section 2.2.2.6 and section 3).
Claim 43. Lung discloses the method according to claim 37, further comprising receiving, from the first plurality of nodes, respective first information regarding: the arrival of the service requests received over the first period of time, the data collected for the service requests received by the second plurality of nodes, and the data collected by the first plurality of nodes over the first period of time, about the service requests received (sections 4.1.1 -4.1.2).
Claim 44. Lung discloses the method according to claim 42, further comprising receiving, from a further node of the communications system, second information regarding the service requests received over the second period of time (section 4.1.2, fig. 7).
Claim 45. Lung discloses the method according to claim 37, wherein: the communications system comprises multiple pluralities of nodes hierarchically organized in a plurality of node layers; and determining the first set of nodes is based on a restriction that all node of the first plurality must belong to a same node layer (p. 333, section 3.4).
Claim 46. Lung discloses a method performed by a second node of a first set of nodes of a first plurality of nodes operating in a communications system, the method comprising: determining a vote for one of the first set of nodes to be candidate for leader node, of the first set, for handling of a prediction of an event in the communication system (Cluster Head), wherein determining the vote is based on at least one of the following with respect to the candidate: available energy resources, average uptime, available computing power, computing latency (Since all the responsibilities of the CH require high energy dissipation, the CH role has to be rotated to different nodes. DHAC uses automatic CH rotation and re-scheduling to make energy dissipate uniformly through the whole network.) (p. 335, section 4.1.2 [election of new cluster head]; p.337, section 4.2, 4.2.1), a communication constraint, the communication constraint being based on an energy cost and a number of connections of the candidate with the other nodes in the first set of nodes (p. 339, section 4.2.3; p. 333, section 4.1.1-4.1.2), and a probability of state change of the candidate (Re-scheduling is designed to keep energy dissipation more uniform within the cluster. Under certain conditions, the CH informs cluster members of a new schedule, then, cluster members start to follow the new schedule. There are two conditions that can trigger the re-scheduling. A cluster has a change. The change can be a new node joining, or a node leaving or dead. The CH has lower energy than the threshold Th(energy).) (p. 338, section 4.22); and, sending, to the nodes of the first set, a second indication of the determined vote (sections 4.1.1 and 4.2.1); and sending, to the nodes of the first set, a third indication indicating that a third node is the leader node (Cluster Head) of the first set, wherein the third indication is based on the second indication sent to the nodes of the first set (sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2).
Claim 47. Lung discloses the method according to claim 46, further comprising receiving, from a first node of the communications system, a first indication indicating that the second node is part of the first set of nodes, wherein the determining the vote is responsive to the first indication (sections 3.1; 4.2.1).
Claim 48. Lung discloses the method according to claim 46, further comprising: receiving, from all other nodes of the first set, respective votes for one of the first set of nodes to be candidate for leader node, of the first set, for handling of a prediction of an event in the communication network; and based on the received votes, determining the third node to be the leader node for the first set of nodes (p. 335, section 4.1.2; p. 337, section 4.2.1).
Claims 54 and 55 represent the system of claims 37 and 46, respectively, and are rejected along the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 49-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lung et al Using hierarchical agglomerative clustering in wireless sensor networks: An energy-efficient and flexible approach (October 2, 2009) Hereinafter Lung in view of Han et al. (US 2021/0127136 A1).
Claim 49. Lung discloses a method performed by a third node of a first set of nodes of a first plurality of nodes operating in a communications system, the method comprising:
receiving, from all other nodes of the first set of nodes, respective fourth indications indicating respective predictions of an event (cluster head move) in the communication system (sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.1)., wherein:
updating a machine-learning model of the event based on the following: the respective fourth indications received from the other nodes of the first set, and a prediction of the event by the third node, based on a set of observations on the event that were collected by the third node (The CH of the new cluster broadcasts an INFORM message to notify its neighbors to update their resemblance matrices (Fig. 6, lines 25 and 37). Clusters update their own resemblance matrix after receiving this INFORM message, which contains the new cluster information and the merged neighbor list.) (p. 336, section 4.1.2); and sending a fifth indication indicating the updated machine-learning model to a further node in the communications system, wherein at least one of the following conditions applies: (i) the communications system comprises multiple pluralities of nodes hierarchically organized in a plurality of node layers; (ii) the further node is part of a different node layer than the third node; (iii) the further node is a leader node of a second set of nodes of the first plurality; and (iv) all nodes of the first plurality are part of a same node layer (p.332, section 3.1, p. 335, section 4.1.2).
Lung does not explicitly disclose the third node is forbidden from accessing respective sets of observations on the event that were collected by the other nodes in the first set of nodes, and the third node is a leader node of the first set of nodes.
However, Han discloses limit_refer_flag is a prohibition switch information (prohibition switch flag) indicating whether reference to a parent neighbor node is prohibited ([0742]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lung with Han features. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the amounts of processing performed by the devices.
Claim 50. Lung and Han disclose the method according to claim 49, Lung further discloses comprising receiving, from a second node of the first set, a third indication indicating that the third node is leader node, of the first set, for handling of a prediction of an event in the communication network (p. 337, section 4.2.1).
Claim 51. Lung and Han disclose the method according to claim 49, Lung further discloses wherein conditions (i) and (iv) apply (sections 3.1 and 4).
Claim 52. Lung and Han disclose the method according to any claim 49, Lung further discloses wherein: condition (i) applies; all nodes of the first set, other than the third node, belong to a same node layer (sections 3.1 and 4.1.2); the first plurality of nodes comprises a plurality of second sets of nodes; and each node of the first set is a leader of a corresponding second set of nodes (section 4.2.1).
Claim 56 represents the system of claim 49 and is rejected along the same rationale.
7. Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lung et al Using hierarchical agglomerative clustering in wireless sensor networks: An energy-efficient and flexible approach (October 2, 2009) Hereinafter Lung in view of Han et al. (US 2021/0127136 A1) and further in view of Hoydis et al. (US 2020/0177418).
Claim 53. Lung and Han disclose the method according to claim 49, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein updating the machine-learning model of the event is based on minimizing a cross-entropy between the received respective fourth indications and an outcome of the updated machine-learning model.
However, Hoydis discloses updating the machine-learning model of the event is based on minimizing a cross-entropy between the received respective fourth indications and an outcome of the updated machine-learning model ([0120]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lung with Hoydis features. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the mismatch between the initial model used during training and the update model.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Phenuel S. Salomon whose telephone number is (571) 270-1699. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (Alternate Friday Off) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Usmaan Saeed can be reached on (571) 272-4046. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-3800.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHENUEL S SALOMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2146