DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the application No. 18/272,342 filed on July 13, 2023. The provisional claim amendment filed on July 13, 2023 is acknowledged, accordingly the amended claims 1-22 which are submitted for examination are considered and claims 1, 9, 19 and 20 are independent.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. This application filed on 07/13/2023 is a National Stage entry of PCT/IB2022/050212, International Filing Date: 01/12/2022 PCT/IB2022/050212 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63144257, filed on 02/01/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/13/2023 has been considered. The submission is in-compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Drawings
5. The drawings filed on July 13, 2023 are accepted.
Specification
6. The specification filed on July 13, 2023 is also accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: At the end of claim 22, the following is recited “a.” This should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 21 recites “a computer program computer program comprising instructions which when executed by processing circuitry of a node causes the node to perform the method of claim 1” The claim is directed to a computer program per se, which is neither stored nor limited to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and therefore could encompasses transitory propagation signals. Neither a computer program alone nor a transitory signals does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Accordingly claim 21 is rejected is a program per se and being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 22 further recites “a carrier containing the computer program of claim 21, wherein the carrier is one of an electronic signal, an optical signal, a radio signal, and a computer readable storage medium”. Because this claim explicitly includes electronic signals, optical signals and radio signal, the claim encompasses transitory propagation signals which are not statutory under 35 USC § 101.
The Court of Appels for the Federal Circuit held in Ln re Nuijten that transitory propagating signals are not patent-eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101
Accordingly claim 22 is rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 1, 5, 9, 13 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by NPL document, titled, “Distributed Online Optimization over a Heterogenous Network with Any-batch Mirror Descent” (Eshraghi Nima et al) (herein after referred as Nima) (Pub. Date: July. 12, 2020) (This prior art is cited and provided with the IDS]
The following is referring to independent claims 1, 9 and 19-20:
As per independent claim 1, Nima discloses a method [Abstract. “we consider a new algorithm termed Distributed Any-Batch Mirror Descent (DABMD)”]for performing online convex optimization [Abstract, “distributed online optimization”, 3.2, right column, 1st paragraph, “The cost function is convex”] the method comprising:
receiving, from two or more worker nodes [See page 5, right column, second paragraph, “each node …sends a message to the neighboring nodes…after receiving the messages from all neighbors” and page 3, right column, second paragraph, “Computing nodes exchange information …computing node i assigns a non-negative weight Pt ij to the received information from node j”], a local decision vector [Page 5, right column, second paragraph equation 12, where xj,t. is a local decision vector, in view of page 4, left column, 4th paragraph, “every com puting node …maintains a local estimate of the global minimizer yi, t as well as a local decision vector xi, t]and local data corresponding to each of the two or more worker nodes[ Page 7, left column, “y(l) i,t denote the vector output at computing node i and round ….after receiving messages from all its neighbors, node i updates its estimate of the global minimizer by…equation 16]; performing a multi-step [Page 7, left column , 4th paragraph, a finite number of iteration” also page 3, 3.2, right column, last paragraph and page 4, 1st paragraph “the computing nodes individually process the data samples to minimize some global cost function in a round-by-round manner. Each round t corresponds to time slot t and consists of computation and communication phases…local minibatch size, the number of samples that node i process in round t] gradient descent [page 2, left column, 4th paragraph, “an online optimization approach termed Distributed Any-Batch Mirror Descent (DABMD)” in view of page 2, left column, second paragraph, “Mirror descent ….generalizes the projection step of gradient descent”]based on the local decision vector and the local data received from the two or more worker nodes [Page 5, right column, second paragraph, “computing node i updates its estimate of the global minimizer by equation 12” and page 7, left column, 3rd paragraph, “node i updates its estimate of the global minimizer by equation 16], wherein performing the multi-step gradient descent comprises determining a global decision vector and corresponding global information [Page 4, left column, 4th paragraph and page 4, right column 1st paragraph, every computing node i maintains a local estimate of the global minimizer yi,t …Local estimates yi,t are updated accordingly, which are then used together with the next minibatch bi,t+1 to compute the local decision xi,t+1 in the next round” and page 5, left column, 4.1, every computing node i computes bi,t gradients of f(x,ω), evaluated at the local estimate of the global minimizer x = yi,t…. After computing the local mini batch gradient, each computing node i performs the following update, xi,t and yi,t are respectively the local decision and the local estimate of the global minimizer at round t” and page 7, 5, “multiple consensus iterations”, “with k iterations …computing nodes receive the message of nodes that are k hops away” wherein the k hopes equate a delay, and equation 16, wherein the delay is also part of the global information]
; and sending, to each of the two or more worker nodes, the global decision vector and corresponding global information [Page 5, right column, 2nd paragraph, . each node …sends a message to the neighboring nodes. …updates its estimate of the global minimizer by equation 1”, global minimizer yi,t, in futher view of page 7, left column chapter 5, 3rd paragraph, “each iteration l, after receiving messages from all its neighbors, node i updates its estimate of the global minimizer by equation 16” teaches that the global minimizers are received at the computing node as well, which implies that they are sent]
As per independent claim 19, independent claim 19 is rejected for same reason as that of the above independent claim 1.
As per independent claim 9, independent claim 9 is rejected for same reason as that of the above independent claim 1. Independent claim 9 further recites and defines the complementary role of a computing node, that is the role of a worker node, while claim 1 defines the corresponding role as a master node for a node as it both sends and receives information from its neighbors following the network graph [See Nima, Page 7, left column, 4th paragraph, 5, “As long as graph Gt, corresponding to the weight matrix Pt, is connected, in view of page 3, right column,1st paragraph, “topology ….is modeled by an undirected graph Gt…. set of nodes and edges at time t. In particular time delay information is taught by page 7, 5. “5. Multiple Consensus Iterations” ,in particular 2nd paragraph, “with k iterations …computing nodes receive the message of nodes that are k hops away” wherein the k hopes equate a delay, and equation 16, wherein the delay is also part of the global information]
As per independent claim 20, independent claim 20 is rejected for same reason as that of the above independent claim 9.
The following is referring to dependent claims 5, 13, 17-18 and 21-22:
As per dependent claim 5, Nima discloses the method/system as applied to claim 1 above. Furthermore, Nima discloses the method/device, wherein the local data corresponding to each of the two or more worker nodes has a non-zero local delay [page 7, 5. “5. Multiple Consensus Iterations” ,in particular 2nd paragraph, “with k iterations …computing nodes receive the message of nodes that are k hops away” wherein the k hopes equate a delay, and equation 16, wherein the delay is also part of the global information]
As per dependent claim 13, Nima discloses the method/system as applied to claim 1 above. Furthermore, Nima discloses the method/device, wherein the local data has a non-zero local delay. [page 7, 5. “5. Multiple Consensus Iterations” ,in particular 2nd paragraph, “with k iterations …computing nodes receive the message of nodes that are k hops away” wherein the k hopes equate a delay, and equation 16, wherein the delay is also part of the global information]
As per dependent claim 17, dependent claim 17 is rejected for same reason as that of the above independent claim 1.
As per dependent claim 18, dependent claim 19 is rejected for same reason as that of the above independent claim 9.
As per claims 21-22, claims 21-22 are rejected for same reason as that of the above independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
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 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.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL document, titled, “Distributed Online Optimization over a Heterogenous Network with Any-batch Mirror Descent” (Eshraghi Nima et al ) (herein after referred as Nima) (Pub. Date: July. 12, 2020) in view of Alexander Matveev et al (here in after referred as Matveev) (US Publication No. 20190156214 A1, Pub. Date: May 23, 2019)
As per dependent claim 2 Nima doesn’t explicitly disclose the limitation: “wherein the local data received from each of the two or more worker nodes is compressed, and wherein the method further comprises uncompressing the local data received from each of the two or more worker nodes”
However, Matveev explicitly discloses “wherein the local data received from each of the two or more worker nodes is compressed [Para.0057, a. Each node computing weights or another relevant parameter sorts the weights or other parameters, recording or saving the sort order or index order of the sorted weights, for example in a vector. The node may save or store the sort order locally for future use, as discussed further. b. Each node compresses the sorted weights for example using ZIP or another suitable compression technology, typically lossless, to produce compressed sorted weights. c. Each node transmits or sends the compressed or Zipped weights to, for example a master node. d. Each node transmits or sends its sort order to, for example a master node], and wherein the method further comprises uncompressing the local data received from each of the two or more worker nodes [Paragraph 0057, d. Each node transmits or sends its sort order to, for example a master node. The master node decompresses the parameters, and reorders or resorts the parameters to their original order, according to the last sort order or indexing received.]
Nima and Matveev are an analogous in the same field of endeavor as they both are directed to exchange of data in distributed system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distributed optimization method of Nima by incorporating the compression mechanism such as “wherein the local data received from each of the two or more worker nodes is compressed, and wherein the method further comprises uncompressing the local data received from each of the two or more worker nodes” as per teachings of Matveev in order to reduce communication overhead and bandwidth usage when transmitting data between the working nodes and a master nodes, thereby improving the efficiency and scalability of distributed computing system [See Matveev, at least paragraph 0057, a-d].
as per teaching of Schick for enhancing the security of the system by making the system less susceptible to spoofing and prompt injection attacks achieving substantially improved performance [See Schick, for instance Abstract, … achieving substantially improved performance].
As per dependent claim 10 Nima doesn’t explicitly disclose the limitation: “wherein the local data sent to the master node is compressed prior to sending.”
However, Matveev explicitly discloses “wherein the local data sent to the master node is compressed prior to sending.”[Para.0057, a. Each node computing weights or another relevant parameter sorts the weights or other parameters, recording or saving the sort order or index order of the sorted weights, for example in a vector. The node may save or store the sort order locally for future use, as discussed further. b. Each node compresses the sorted weights for example using ZIP or another suitable compression technology, typically lossless, to produce compressed sorted weights. c. Each node transmits or sends the compressed or Zipped weights to, for example a master node. d. Each node transmits or sends its sort order to, for example a master node and Paragraph 0057, d. Each node transmits or sends its sort order to, for example a master node. The master node decompresses the parameters, and reorders or resorts the parameters to their original order, according to the last sort order or indexing received.]
Nima and Matveev are an analogous in the same field of endeavor as they both are directed to exchange of data in distributed system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distributed optimization method of Nima by incorporating the compression mechanism such as “wherein the local data sent to the master node is compressed prior to sending” as per teachings of Matveev in order to reduce communication overhead and bandwidth usage when transmitting data between the working nodes and a master nodes, thereby improving the efficiency and scalability of distributed computing system [See Matveev, at least paragraph 0057, a-d].
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL document, titled, “Distributed Online Optimization over a Heterogenous Network with Any-batch Mirror Descent” (Eshraghi Nima et al ) (herein after referred as Nima) (Pub. Date: July. 12, 2020) in view of Junyoung NAM (here in after referred as NAM) (US Publication No. 20130078991A1
, Pub. Date: March 28, 2013)
As per dependent claim 6 Nima doesn’t explicitly disclose the limitation: “wherein the two or more worker nodes comprise transmission/reception points (TRPs), the local data corresponds to local channel state information, and the local decision vectors correspond to precoding matrices”
However, NAM explicitly discloses “wherein the two or more worker nodes comprise transmission/reception points (TRPs) [Para. 0011,” method in a wireless system having multiple transmission/reception nodes”], the local data corresponds to local channel state information [Para. 0011, channel states of transmission nodes by using pilot signals transmitted from the transmission nodes to acquire channel information of the transmission nodes; mutually sharing, by the reception nodes, the channel information”], and the local decision vectors correspond to precoding matrices [Para. 0011, calculating, by each reception node, a precoding matrix using all the pieces of channel information; …a precoding matrix back to a transmission node i; and transmitting, by each transmission node, a transmission signal to a reception node by using the precoding matrix fed back from each reception node.].
Nima and NAM are an analogous in the same field of endeavor as they both are directed to exchange of data having sending and receiving nodes.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distributed optimization method of Nima by incorporating a mechanism such as “the two or more worker nodes comprise transmission/reception points (TRPs), the local data corresponds to local channel state information, and the local decision vectors correspond to precoding matrices” as per teachings of NAM in order to enable efficient signal transmission and interference control using channel state and corresponding precoding matrices [See NAM, at least paragraph 0011 and para. 0007. The present invention has been made to solve the above-described problem, and an object of the present invention is to provide an interference control method in a wireless system having multiple transmission/reception nodes capable of controlling interference by causing reception nodes to mutually share channel state information (CSI).].
As per dependent claim 14 Nima doesn’t explicitly disclose the limitation: “wherein the local data corresponds to local channel state information, and the local decision vectors correspond to precoding matrices”
However, NAM explicitly discloses “the local data corresponds to local channel state information [Para. 0011, channel states of transmission nodes by using pilot signals transmitted from the transmission nodes to acquire channel information of the transmission nodes; mutually sharing, by the reception nodes, the channel information”], and the local decision vectors correspond to precoding matrices [Para. 0011, calculating, by each reception node, a precoding matrix using all the pieces of channel information; …a precoding matrix back to a transmission node i; and transmitting, by each transmission node, a transmission signal to a reception node by using the precoding matrix fed back from each reception node.].
Nima and NAM are an analogous in the same field of endeavor as they both are directed to exchange of data having sending and receiving nodes.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distributed optimization method of Nima by incorporating a mechanism such as “ the local data corresponds to local channel state information, and the local decision vectors correspond to precoding matrices” as per teachings of NAM in order to enable efficient signal transmission and interference control using channel state and corresponding precoding matrices [See NAM, at least paragraph 0011 and para. 0007. The present invention has been made to solve the above-described problem, and an object of the present invention is to provide an interference control method in a wireless system having multiple transmission/reception nodes capable of controlling interference by causing reception nodes to mutually share channel state information (CSI).].
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Dependent claims 3, 7, 11 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Dependent claim 4 depend on the above dependent claim 3 and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Dependent claim 8 depend on the above dependent claim 7 and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Dependent claim 12 depend on the above dependent claim 11 and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Dependent claim 16 depend on the above dependent claim 15 and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
15. The following is an examiner’s statements of reasons for allowance:
Regarding dependent claim 3, the above prior arts of record including the rest of the cited prior arts either taken alone or in combination neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application that is taken as a whole including the following specific mathematical equation recited in claim 3.
For this reason, the specific claim limitations recited in dependent claim 3 taken as whole are found to be allowable.
Regarding dependent claim 7, the above prior arts of record including the rest of the cited prior arts either taken alone or in combination neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application that is taken as a whole including the following specific mathematical equation recited in claim 7.
For this reason, the specific claim limitations recited in dependent claim 7 taken as whole are found to be allowable.
Regarding dependent claim 11, the above prior arts of record including the rest of the cited prior arts either taken alone or in combination neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application that is taken as a whole including the following specific mathematical equation recited in claim 11.
For this reason, the specific claim limitations recited in dependent claim 11 taken as whole are found to be allowable.
Regarding dependent claim 15, the above prior arts of record including the rest of the cited prior arts either taken alone or in combination neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application that is taken as a whole including the following specific mathematical equation recited in claim 15.
For this reason, the specific claim limitations recited in dependent claim 15 taken as whole are found to be allowable.
16. The dependent claims 4, 8, 12 and 16 which are dependent on the above dependent claims 3, 7 11 and 15 respectively being further limiting to the dependent claims, definite and enabled by the specification would also be allowed if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
. Conclusion
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A. US Publication No. 2017/0238323 A1 to Marinier discloses methods and systems for determining and communicating channel state information (CSI) for one or more transmission points (or CSI reference signal resources). Embodiments further contemplate determining transmission states may include applying at least one CSI process for channel state information (CSI) reporting. Embodiments also contemplate aperiodic and/or periodic reporting of one or more report types (e.g., rank indicator (RI)) of CSI, perhaps based on one or more reporting modes that may be configured for each of the one or more CSI process.
B. US Publication No. 2020/0373985 A1 Tsai discloses a method, a computer-readable medium, and an apparatus are provided. The apparatus may be a UE. The UE determines to report CSI reports. The UE determines that a first CSI report and a second CSI report to be reported contain same CSI information. The UE determines that total processing units required for updating the first CSI report and the second CSI report to be processing units required for updating one of the first CSI report and the second CSI report. The UE updates the first CSI report and the second CSI report based on a same CSI calculation.
C. US Publication No. 20220237515 A1 Prakash discloses technologies for distributing gradient descent computation in a heterogeneous multi-access edge computing (mec) networks
Wherein a method are provided for distributed machine learning (ML) training using heterogeneous compute nodes in a heterogeneous computing environment, where the heterogeneous compute nodes are connected to a master node via respective wireless links. ML computations are performed by individual heterogeneous compute nodes on respective training datasets, and a master combines the outputs of the ML computations obtained from individual heterogeneous compute nodes. The ML computations are balanced across the heterogeneous compute nodes based on knowledge of network conditions and operational constraints experienced by the heterogeneous compute nodes. Other embodiments may be described and/or claimed.
D. See the other cited prior arts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMSON B LEMMA whose telephone number is 571-272-3806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-10pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shaw Yin Chen can be reached on to 571-272-8878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/SAMSON B LEMMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498