DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding claim 1, it recites the limitations:
“furthermore, the communications among MEC nodes and between MEC nodes and the cloud data center are conducted via the backhaul link…moreover, the content library of the cloud data center, denoted by F={f1, f2, . . . , fi, . . . , fI}, where I indicates the number of accessible contents;
it is noted that users are discretely distributed in the service zone of each edge node”.
These limitations are not positively recited as steps of the claimed invention and therefore, are not being given patentable weight. Respective dependent claims do not cure the deficiency of the parent claim(s), and therefore, inherit the rejection.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the caching space of MEC nodes”, “the set C”, “the wireless link”, “the cloud data center”, “the backhaul link”, “the caching space status”, “the proposed system”, “the content library of the cloud data center”, “the number of accessible contents” and “the service zone”.
Claim 3 recites “the proposed RoCoCache”, “the predication accuracy”, “the global predication model”, and “the cache hit rate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “which cannot well reflect the unique preferences of different users”. This is not a positive recitation of a step and therefore, not being given patentable weight.
Claim 6 recites “the user request matrix X”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “and these two cases are hard to be distinguished, leading to inaccurate prediction”. This is not a positive recitation of a step and therefore, not being given patentable weight.
Claim 7 recites “next, we arrange the elements of each column in Ri in descending order, retain their sorted positions, and transform them into for example… specifically, the mean and standard deviation (STD) of R are defined as following the mean and STD, we can divide the normal and adversarial model updates into two clusters through the K-means, where the adversarial model updates can be easily identified by the proposed residual-based detection… to avoid the model destruction caused by adversarial model updates, we design a similarity-based federated aggregation method”. Examiner finds that the claim is written more as a narrative description than claimed as steps of a claimed invention. Appropriate claim language reciting claim steps is requested.
Claim 8 recites “wherein based on the proposed RFDL”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If Robust Federated Deep Learning is being referred to as RFDL, the antecedent basis for the abbreviation RFDL has to be established first. Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al (CN115134418A).
Regarding claim 1, Zhnag teaches a Collaborative Caching Framework for Multi-edge Systems with Robust Federated Deep Learning, wherein the Collaborative Caching Framework for Multi-edge Systems which consists of M MEC nodes (Zhang under “Contents of the Invention” provides “The invention claims a cooperative storage method of multi-access edge computing, applied to server end, the server end comprises a cooperative cache system composed of M edge servers”), each contains a MEC server and a base station, donated by the set E={e1, e2, . . . , em, . . . , eM}, and N users, donated by the set U={u1, u2, . . . , un, . . . , UN} (Zhang fig.1 and corresponding description provides “FIG. 1 is a diagram of a plurality of edge servers provided by the present invention, as shown in FIG. the base station a, the base station b and the base station C are the interface devices of the mobile device access network”, wherein mobile device users provides for users);
the caching space of MEC nodes is donated as the set C={C1, C2, . . . , Cm, . . . , CM} (Zhang under “Contents of the Invention” provides “The invention claims a cooperative storage method of multi-access edge computing, applied to server end, the server end comprises a cooperative cache system composed of M edge servers”);
each user is connected to a MEC node, and they communicate with each other via the wireless link provided by the associated base station (Zhang fig.1 and corresponding description provides “FIG. 1 is a diagram of a plurality of edge servers provided by the present invention, as shown in FIG. the base station a, the base station b and the base station C are the interface devices of the mobile device access network”, wherein mobile device users provide for users);
the caching space status of each MEC node is periodically broadcast to the other MEC nodes within the proposed system (Zhang under Fig.2 description provides “Assuming that each edge server in the cooperative cache system of the present invention has the information of the current cache file of the other edge servers in the same cooperative cache domain, and can periodically broadcast to other connected users”);
Regarding claim 2, the Collaborative Caching Framework for Multi-edge Systems with Robust Federated Deep Learning according to claim 1, wherein when the user un sends a request for the content fi to its connected MEC node (Zhang under “Contents of the Invention” provides “The invention further claims a cooperative storage method of multi-access edge computing, applied to the client, comprising: sending the downloading request of the content requirement to the edge server”), the workflow is given as follows:
Step 1: the current MEC node checks whether it has cached fi; if fi is cached, the MEC node will send it to un directly; otherwise, it goes to Step 2 (Zhang under “Specific implementation examples” provides “Therefore, when the user has content requirement, if the corresponding edge server has the content needed by the cache user, then the user can download the corresponding file to the corresponding edge server, so as to reduce the delay of the download. Therefore, the edge server cache content of the hit rate is also very important, can ensure that the cached information is the content needed to be downloaded by the user”);
Step 2: the current MEC node searches for whether there exists a collaborative MEC node that caches fi; if there exists, the collaborative MEC node will forward f to the current MEC node via the backhaul link, and then fi will be sent to un; otherwise, it goes to Step 3 (Zhang fig.7 and corresponding description provides “step 702, receiving the file information corresponding to the download request returned by the edge server, the edge server returns the file information according to the preset cooperative storage method. under the condition that the content popularity and the prior information of the user preference are unknown, the edge server designs and coordinates the content cache solution in the MEC edge server by combining the multi-agent reinforcement learning, which can obviously improve the content cache hit rate, reduce the delay of content download”);
Step 3: if no collaborative MEC node caches fi, the content library in the cloud data center will provide fi and forward it to the current MEC node through the backhaul link, and then fi will be sent to un (Zhang fig.7 and corresponding description provides “step 702, receiving the file information corresponding to the download request returned by the edge server, the edge server returns the file information according to the preset cooperative storage method. under the condition that the content popularity and the prior information of the user preference are unknown, the edge server designs and coordinates the content cache solution in the MEC edge server by combining the multi-agent reinforcement learning, which can obviously improve the content cache hit rate, reduce the delay of content download”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kim et al US 2023/0156074.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISHRAT RASHID whose telephone number is (571)272-5372. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Tonia L Dollinger can be reached at 571-272-4170. 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.
/I.R/ Examiner, Art Unit 2459 /SCHQUITA D GOODWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights