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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 11/08/2023, 01/16/2024. All of the cited references have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings have been received on 08/08/2023. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“network function” in claims 13, 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1,
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“determine, using subscription data associated with each of the plurality of user equipments, whether each of the plurality of user equipments are authorised to be used by the server for the federated learning operation; and”
“in response to determining that at least two of the plurality of user equipments are authorised, [provide a message to each of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments that are authorised, each message comprising an encryption key associated with the federated learning operation.]”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, e.g., determining). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass, inter alia, determining whether each of the plurality of user equipments are authorised (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations:
“receive, from a server, an authorisation request for a federated learning operation, the authorisation request identifying a plurality of user equipments;”
“[in response to determining that at least two of the plurality of user equipments are authorised,] provide a message to each of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments that are authorised, each message comprising an encryption key associated with the federated learning operation.”
As drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the additional elements of "receiving an authorisation request" and “providing a message” amount to mere data gathering and data storage, respectively, which are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception. (i.e., the additional element describes a unit for applying the abstract ideas). Insignificant extra-solution activities and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) ("The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions ... i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network") (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2,
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“generate the encryption key, for the message to be provided to each of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments.”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, e.g., generating). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass, inter alia, generating the encryption key (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Please see the corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3,
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“generate an identity for a session, the session associated with the federated learning operation, the identity for the session being provided in the message to each of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments.”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, e.g., generating). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass, inter alia, generating the identity for a session (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Please see the corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4,
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations:
“wherein the message comprises an identity of the server.”
As drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the additional elements of “providing a message” amount to mere data gathering and data storage, respectively, which are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception. (i.e., the additional element describes a unit for applying the abstract ideas). Insignificant extra-solution activities and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) ("The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions ... i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network") (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5,
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations:
“wherein the authorisation request comprises an identity of a machine learning model for the federated learning operation, and wherein the message comprises the identity of the machine learning model.”
As drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the additional elements of "receiving an authorisation request" amount to mere data gathering and data storage, respectively, which are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception. (i.e., the additional element describes a unit for applying the abstract ideas). Insignificant extra-solution activities and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) ("The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions ... i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network") (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6,
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“in response to determining that at least two the plurality of user equipments are authorised, generate a record for the federated learning operation, the record comprising at least one of: identities of each of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments, the identity of the machine learning model, the identity of the server, the identity of the session, and the encryption key associated with the federated learning operation.”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, e.g., generating). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass, inter alia, generating a record for a session (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Please see the corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7,
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“determine which access and mobility management functions each of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments are registered at, using unified data management queries.”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, e.g., determining). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass, inter alia, determining which access and mobility management functions (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Please see the corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8,
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations:
“wherein the authorisation request comprises an identity of the federated learning operation, the identity of the server, and identities for each of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments.”
As drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the additional elements of "receiving an authorisation request" amount to mere data gathering and data storage, respectively, which are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception. (i.e., the additional element describes a unit for applying the abstract ideas). Insignificant extra-solution activities and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) ("The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions ... i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network") (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9,
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations:
“receive a confirmation message indicating which of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments successfully received the message; and”
“in response to the received confirmation message, provide, to the server, i) an indication of which of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments successfully received the message, and ii) the identity of the session.”
As drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the additional elements of "receiving an authorisation request" amount to mere data gathering and data storage, respectively, which are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception. (i.e., the additional element describes a unit for applying the abstract ideas). Insignificant extra-solution activities and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) ("The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions ... i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network") (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10,
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations:
“wherein the message comprises an identity of the respective user equipment receiving the message.”
As drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the additional elements of “providing a message” amount to mere data gathering and data storage, respectively, which are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception. (i.e., the additional element describes a unit for applying the abstract ideas). Insignificant extra-solution activities and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) ("The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions ... i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network") (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11,
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations:
“wherein the encryption key is a secret key.”
As drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the additional elements of “providing a message” amount to mere data gathering and data storage, respectively, which are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception. (i.e., the additional element describes a unit for applying the abstract ideas). Insignificant extra-solution activities and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) ("The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions ... i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network") (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 12,
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations:
“wherein the messages to each of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments are provided via an access and mobility management function service.”
As drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the additional elements of “providing a message” amount to mere data gathering and data storage, respectively, which are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception. (i.e., the additional element describes a unit for applying the abstract ideas). Insignificant extra-solution activities and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) ("The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions ... i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network") (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 13,
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“encrypt the model parameters using the encryption key; and”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, e.g., encrypting). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass, inter alia, encrypting the model parameters (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations:
“train the machine learning model at the user equipment to output model parameters;”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, they amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a machine learning model (e.g., by using these elements as tools).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations:
“receive, from a network function, a message comprising an encryption key associated with a federated learning operation;”
“receive, from the server, a machine learning model of the federated learning operation;”
“provide the encrypted model parameters to the server.”
As drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the additional elements of "receiving a message", “receiving a machine learning model” and “providing the encrypted model” amount to mere data gathering and data storage, respectively, which are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The limitations:
“train the machine learning model at the user equipment to output model parameters;”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, they amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a machine learning model (e.g., by using these elements as tools).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception. (i.e., the additional element describes a unit for applying the abstract ideas). Insignificant extra-solution activities and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) ("The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions ... i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network") (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations:
“wherein the message comprises at least one of: an identity of the server, and an identity for a session, wherein the session is associated with the federated learning operation.”
As drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the additional elements of “providing a message” amount to mere data gathering and data storage, respectively, which are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception. (i.e., the additional element describes a unit for applying the abstract ideas). Insignificant extra-solution activities and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) ("The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions ... i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network") (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations:
“receive, from the server, aggregated encrypted model parameters of a plurality of user equipments.”
As drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the additional elements of “receiving aggregated encrypted model parameters” amount to mere data gathering and data storage, respectively, which are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception. (i.e., the additional element describes a unit for applying the abstract ideas). Insignificant extra-solution activities and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) ("The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions ... i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network") (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“decrypt the aggregated encrypted model parameters using the encryption key.”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, e.g., decrypting). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass, inter alia, decrypting the aggregated encrypted model parameters (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Please see the corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations:
“retrain the machine learning model using the decrypted aggregated model parameters.”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, they amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a machine learning model (e.g., by using these elements as tools).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The limitations:
“retrain the machine learning model using the decrypted aggregated model parameters.”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, they amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a machine learning model (e.g., by using these elements as tools).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 18,
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations:
“wherein the message comprising an identity of a server, and an encryption key associated with a federated learning operation is received within a non-access stratum container.”
As drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the additional elements of “providing a message” amount to mere data gathering and data storage, respectively, which are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception. (i.e., the additional element describes a unit for applying the abstract ideas). Insignificant extra-solution activities and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) ("The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions ... i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network") (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 19,
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations:
“provide, to an application management function, an acknowledgement that the message has been received successfully.”
As drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the additional elements of “providing a message” amount to mere data gathering and data storage, respectively, which are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception. (i.e., the additional element describes a unit for applying the abstract ideas). Insignificant extra-solution activities and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) ("The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions ... i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network") (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 20,
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“aggregate the encrypted model parameters from each of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments together.”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, e.g., aggregating). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass, inter alia, aggregating the encrypted model parameters (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations:
“provide, to a network function, an authorisation request for a federated learning operation, the authorisation request identifying a plurality of user equipments;”
“in response to receiving a confirmation message, provide a machine learning model of the federated learning operation to at least two of the plurality of user equipments;”
“receive, from each of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments, encrypted model parameters associated with the machine learning model;”
As drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the additional elements of “providing an authorisation request”, “providing a machine learning model” and “receiving encrypted model parameters” amount to mere data gathering and data storage, respectively, which are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception. (i.e., the additional element describes a unit for applying the abstract ideas). Insignificant extra-solution activities and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) ("The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions ... i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network") (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yin et al. (A Privacy-Preserving Federated Learning for Multiparty Data Sharing in Social IoTs); hereinafter Yin.
Regarding claim 13, Yin teaches an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: (See [page 2714, Fig. 2 System Design] of Yin to see the clients.)
receive, from a network function, a message comprising an encryption key associated with a federated learning operation; (Yin [page 2715, D. Security and Privacy Analysis]: “First, we set up a trusted third party TTP as the institution for generating and distributing the public key pki and decryption key sky1||…||...yn . Simultaneously, in order to apply the function hiding MIFE scheme to the federal learning scenario, we adjusted it by adding a key distribution algorithm KeyDistribute, through which the public key pki is distributed to each client C1, C2, . . . , Cn.”; Note: See page 2714, Fig. 2 System Design of Yin to see that the public key is distributed from the TTP.)
receive, from the server, a machine learning model of the federated learning operation; (See Fig. 1. Privacy Threat Model: (a) Data-level privacy threats to see that shared model transmissions are a normal step in federated learning.)
train the machine learning model at the user equipment to output model parameters; (See Fig. 2. System Design of Yin to see that the model is trained in steps (2)-(4) of clients.)
encrypt the model parameters using the encryption key; and (Yin [page 2712, B. Function Hiding MIFE]: “Setup; KeyGen; KeyDistribute are executed by TPP to generate master public keys and master private keys, and distribute their keys for the server and the clients. The Enc algorithm is executed by the clients to encrypt the respective parameters.”)
provide the encrypted model parameters to the server. (Yin [page 2716, 2) Privacy Analysis: “The most significant feature of function encryption is that in the process of parameter aggregation, it can ensure that the server can only obtain the weighted average parameters of each client and cannot obtain a specific client’s parameters individually, thereby
ensuring the privacy of the client parameters.”)
Regarding claim 15, Yin teaches receive, from the server, aggregated encrypted model parameters of a plurality of user equipments. (Yin [page 2716, 2) Privacy Analysis: “The most significant feature of function encryption is that in the process of parameter aggregation, it can ensure that the server can only obtain the weighted average parameters of each client and cannot obtain a specific client’s parameters individually, thereby ensuring the privacy of the client parameters.”)
Regarding claim 16, Yin teaches decrypt the aggregated encrypted model parameters using the encryption key. (Yin [page 2712, B. Function Hiding MIFE]: “The Enc algorithm is executed by the clients to encrypt the respective parameters. The Dec algorithm is executed by the server to decrypt the result of parameter aggregation.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 5G System Support (3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on 5G System Support for Al/ML-based Services (Release 18); hereinafter 5G in view of Park et al. (Privacy-Preserving Federated Learning Using Homomorphic Encryption); hereinafter Park and in further view of Yin et al. (A Privacy-Preserving Federated Learning for Multiparty Data Sharing in Social IoTs); hereinafter Yin
Claim 1 is rejected over 5G, Park and Yin.
Regarding claim 1, 5G teaches an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: (5G Support [page 82, Figure 6.23.2-1: Federated Learning Assistance Function])
receive, from a server, an authorisation request for a federated learning operation, the authorisation request identifying a plurality of user equipments; (5G Support [page 82, Figure 6.23.2-1: Federated Learning Assistance Function]: “2. AIML_session Create Request (UE group, UE number per cycle, Desired location area, overall response time per cyde, expected UE
response time per cycle, Input model size, output model size)”; and (“2. The AF tasks Federated Learning Assistance Function (which could be integrated in NEF, NWDAF or be standalone) to propose UEs for FL operation. The AF indicates a list or group of UEs to choose from, the number of UEs required to perform federated learning cycle, possibly a desired location of UEs in a form of a target area for FL, duration for iteration and desired average latency for FL iterations. When providing a target area for FL, the AF may provide sub-areas, and provide a percentage of UEs that should take part in FL from each sub-area, and/or a minimum number of UEs and /or a maximum number of UEs that should take part in FL from each sub-area. Optionally, the AF may provide time when to start federated learning, duration of federated learning, size of input model and/or output model. NOTE 2: Step 2 is shown as AIML _session Create Request, but step 2 could also be realized via an analytics request/ subscription with new analytics type.”; Note: The AF is acting as the AI/ML application server. The UE is user equipments.)
determine, using subscription data associated with each of the plurality of user equipments, whether each of the plurality of user equipments are authorised to be used by the server for the federated learning operation; and (5G Support [page 82, Figure 6.23.2-1]: Federated Learning Assistance Function]: “The Federated Learning Assistance Function may query or subscribe at AMF to UE related events such as connectivity state, UE loss of communication, UE reachability status, registration state changes, UE location, or UE moving in or out of area of interest, to inquire or monitor availability of UEs and preferably select connected, active, registered, and/or reachable UEs and/or UEs within a desired region.”; Note: See steps 3-8 of Figure 6.23.2-1 and of the associated descriptions to see the subscription data used.)
5G does not appear to explicitly teach in response to determining that at least two of the plurality of user equipments are authorised, [provide a message to each of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments that are authorised, each message comprising an encryption key associated with the federated learning operation.]
However, Park teaches in response to determining that at least two of the plurality of user equipments are authorised, [provide a message to each of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments that are authorised, each message comprising an encryption key associated with the federated learning operation.] (Park [Section 5.1 Homomorphic Key Generation and Distribution]: “Before the KGC distributes the key pairs, it performs an authentication procedure for the clients and delivers the public-private key pairs to authenticated clients. The clients’ public keys for encryption and a list of authenticated clients are transmitted to the CS and the CP, and the CS utilizes only local model parameters from authenticated clients.’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the federated learning system of 5G and the encryption keys of Park to improve federated learning security (Park, page 15). 5G and Park are analogous art because they both concern federated learning.
5G does not appear to explicitly teach [in response to determining that at least two of the plurality of user equipments are authorised,] provide a message to each of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments that are authorised, each message comprising an encryption key associated with the federated learning operation.
However, Yin teaches [in response to determining that at least two of the plurality of user equipments are authorised,] provide a message to each of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments that are authorised, each message comprising an encryption key associated with the federated learning operation. (Yin [Section I. Introduction]: “Bonawitz et al. [14] propose practical secure aggregation for privacy-preserving federal learning, using secret sharing and authenticated encryption to aggregate model parameters uploaded by the client and prevent the server from obtaining specific model parameters.”; and “[Section B. Function Hiding MIFE]: “Among them, Setup; KeyGen; KeyDistribute are executed by TPP to generate master public keys and master private keys, and distribute their keys for the server and the clients.”; Note: See Figure 2, step (1))
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the federated learning system of 5G and the encryption technology of Yin to improve model performance and privacy (Yin, page 2715). 5G and Yin are analogous art because they both concern federated learning.
Claim 2 is rejected over 5G, Park and Yin with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, 5G does not teach generate the encryption key, for the message to be provided to each of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments.
However, Yin teaches generate the encryption key, for the message to be provided to each of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments. (Yin [Section B. Function Hiding MIFE]: “Among them, Setup; KeyGen; KeyDistribute are executed by TPP to generate master public keys and master private keys, and distribute their keys for the server and the clients.”; Note: See Figure 2, step (1))
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the federated learning system of 5G and the encryption technology of Yin to improve model performance and privacy (Yin, page 2715). 5G and Yin are analogous art because they both concern federated learning.
Claim 3 is rejected over 5G, Park and Yin with the incorporation of claim 1.
5G teaches generate an identity for a session, the session associated with the federated learning operation, the identity for the session being provided in the message to each of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments. (5G Support [page 82, Figure 6.23.2-1]: “2. AIML_session Create Request (UE group, UE number per cycle, Desired location area, overall response time per cyde, expected UE response time per cycle, Input model size, output model size)”; Note: A session created will have an identity of the session)
Claim 4 is rejected over 5G, Park and Yin with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, 5G teaches wherein the message comprises an identity of the server. (5G Support [page 82, Figure 6.23.2-1]: See steps 3a-3b and associated description to see that the access and mobility management (AMF) is shown to be registered at the user equipments (UE) using the unified data management queries 3a. Nudm_UECM_Get (UE ID, AMF) and 3b. Nudm_UECM_Get Response (AMF ID))
Claim 5 is rejected over 5G, Park and Yin with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, 5G teaches wherein the authorisation request comprises an identity of a machine learning model for the federated learning operation, and wherein the message comprises the identity of the machine learning model. (5G Support [page 82, Figure 6.23.2-1]: “2. AIML_session Create Request (UE group, UE number per cycle, Desired location area, overall response time per cyde, expected UE response time per cycle, Input model size, output model size)”; Note: A session created has the model configurations)
Claim 6 is rejected over 5G, Park and Yin with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, 5G does not appear to explicitly teach in response to determining that at least two the plurality of user equipments are authorised, generate a record for the federated learning operation, the record comprising at least one of: identities of each of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments, the identity of the machine learning model, the identity of the server, the identity of the session, and the encryption key associated with the federated learning operation.
However, Park teaches in response to determining that at least two the plurality of user equipments are authorised, generate a record for the federated learning operation, the record comprising at least one of: identities of each of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments, the identity of the machine learning model, the identity of the server, the identity of the session, and the encryption key associated with the federated learning operation. (Park [Section 5.1 Homomorphic Key Generation and Distribution]: “Before the KGC distributes the key pairs, it performs an authentication procedure for the clients and delivers the public-private key pairs to authenticated clients. The clients’ public keys for encryption and a list of authenticated clients are transmitted to the CS and the CP, and the CS utilizes only local model parameters from authenticated clients.’; and [Section 4.1. System Model]: “Figure2 depicts a simple system model comprising a key generation center (KGC), cloud server (CS), computation provider (CP), and multiple clients. The KGC is a trusted organization that performs authentication procedures for clients and servers and generates keypairs. The CS is responsible for securely combining the trained parameters on the clients and can select clients at every iteration for FL.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the federated learning system of 5G and the encryption keys of Park to improve federated learning security (Park, page 15). 5G and Park are analogous art because they both concern federated learning.
Claim 7 is rejected over 5G, Park and Yin with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, 5G teaches determine which access and mobility management functions each of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments are registered at, using unified data management queries. (5G Support [page 82, Figure 6.23.2-1]: See steps 3a-3b and associated description to see that the access and mobility management (AMF) is shown to be registered at the user equipments (UE) using the unified data management queries 3a. Nudm_UECM_Get (UE ID, AMF) and 3b. Nudm_UECM_Get Response (AMF ID))
Claim 8 is rejected over 5G, Park and Yin with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, 5G teaches wherein the authorisation request comprises an identity of the federated learning operation, (5G Support [page 82, Figure 6.23.2-1]: “2. AIML_session Create Request (UE group, UE number per cycle, Desired location area, overall response time per cyde, expected UE response time per cycle, Input model size, output model size)”; Note: A session created will have an identity of the session and federated learning operation)
the identity of the server, and (5G Support [page 82, Figure 6.23.2-1]: See steps 3a-3b and associated description to see that the access and mobility management (AMF) is shown to be registered at the user equipments (UE) using the unified data management queries 3a. Nudm_UECM_Get (UE ID, AMF) and 3b. Nudm_UECM_Get Response (AMF ID))
identities for each of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments. (5G Support [page 82, Figure 6.23.2-1]: See steps 3a-3b and associated description to see that the access and mobility management (AMF) is shown to be registered at the user equipments (UE) using the unified data management queries 3a. Nudm_UECM_Get (UE ID, AMF) and 3b. Nudm_UECM_Get Response (AMF ID))
Claim 10 is rejected over 5G, Park and Yin with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, 5G teaches wherein the message comprises an identity of the respective user equipment receiving the message. (5G Support [page 82, Figure 6.23.2-1]: See steps 3a-3b and associated description to see that the access and mobility management (AMF) is shown to be registered at the user equipments (UE) using the unified data management queries 3a. Nudm_UECM_Get (UE ID, AMF) and 3b. Nudm_UECM_Get Response (AMF ID))
Claim 11 is rejected over 5G, Park and Yin with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, 5G does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the encryption key is a secret key.
However, Yin teaches wherein the encryption key is a secret key. (Yin [Section B. Function Hiding MIFE]: “Among them, Setup; KeyGen; KeyDistribute are executed by TPP to generate master public keys and master private keys, and distribute their keys for the server and the clients.”; Note: See Figure 2, step (1))
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the federated learning system of 5G and the encryption technology of Yin to improve model performance and privacy (Yin, page 2715). 5G and Yin are analogous art because they both concern federated learning.
Claim 12 is rejected over 5G, Park and Yin with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, 5G teaches wherein the messages to each of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments are provided via an access and mobility management function service. (5G Support [page 82, Figure 6.23.2-1]: See steps 3a-3b and associated description to see that the access and mobility management (AMF) is shown to be registered at the user equipments (UE) using the unified data management queries 3a. Nudm_UECM_Get (UE ID, AMF) and 3b. Nudm_UECM_Get Response (AMF ID))
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 5G, Park and Yin in view of Wen et al. (Federated Learning powered by NVIDIA Clara); hereinafter Wen
Claim 9 is rejected over 5G, Park, Yin and Wen with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, 5G teaches ii) the identity of the session. (5G Support [page 82, Figure 6.23.2-1]: “2. AIML_session Create Request (UE group, UE number per cycle, Desired location area, overall response time per cyde, expected UE response time per cycle, Input model size, output model size)”; Note: A session created will have an identity of the session)
5G does not appear to explicitly teach receive a confirmation message indicating which of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments successfully received the message; and
in response to the received confirmation message, provide, to the server, i) an indication of which of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments successfully received the message, and
However, Wen teaches receive a confirmation message indicating which of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments successfully received the message; and (Wen [page 3]: “If the authentication is successful, the server sends a Federated Learning token back to the client for use in the following client-server communication” and [page 4]: “GetModel Acquires the model of the current round from the server. The server checks the token, and sends back the global model to the client.”; Note: See the federated learning system architecture image on page 3 to see the client server authentication.)
in response to the received confirmation message, provide, to the server, i) an indication of which of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments successfully received the message, and (Wen [page 3]: “Once the client finishes the current round of training, they can send the updated model to the server using the existing Federated Learning token. After the server receives all the updated models from all the participating clients, it performs the model aggregation based on the weights algorithms and receives the overall updated training model.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the federated learning system of 5G and the federated learning token of Wen to establish trust between the client and server (Wen [page 7]). 5G and Wen are analogous art because they both concern federated learning.
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin and 5G.
Claim 14 is rejected over Yin and 5G with the incorporation of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Yin does not appear to teach wherein the message comprises at least one of: an identity of the server, and an identity for a session, wherein the session is associated with the federated learning operation.
However, 5G teaches wherein the message comprises at least one of: an identity of the server, and an identity for a session, wherein the session is associated with the federated learning operation. (5G Support [page 82, Figure 6.23.2-1]: “2. AIML_session Create Request (UE group, UE number per cycle, Desired location area, overall response time per cyde, expected UE response time per cycle, Input model size, output model size)”; Note: A session created will have an identity of the session)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the encryption federated learning system of Yin with the AMF connectivity of 5G to effectively query or subscribe AMF to UE related events (5G, page 83). Yin and AMF are analogous art because they both concern federated learning.
Claim 19 is rejected over Yin and 5G with the incorporation of claim 13.
Regarding claim 19, Yin does not appear to explicitly teach provide, to an application management function, an acknowledgement that the message has been received successfully.
However, 5G teaches provide, to an application management function, an acknowledgement that the message has been received successfully. (5G Support [page 82, 3-4]: “The Federated Learning Assistance Function may query or subscribe at AMF to UE related events such as connectivity state, UE loss of communication, UE reachability status, registration state changes, UE location, or UE moving in or out of area of interest, to inquire or monitor availability of UEs and preferably select connected, active, registered, and/or reachable UEs and/or UEs within a desired region.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the encryption federated learning system of Yin with the AMF connectivity of 5G to effectively query or subscribe AMF to UE related events (5G, page 83). Yin and AMF are analogous art because they both concern federated learning.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin and Dhunay et al. (US 20220210140 A1); hereinafter Dhunay
Claim 17 is rejected over Yin and Dhunay with the incorporation of claim 13.
Regarding claim 17, Yin does not appear to explicitly teach retrain the machine learning model using the decrypted aggregated model parameters.
However, Dhunay teaches retrain the machine learning model using the decrypted aggregated model parameters. (Dhunay [0093]: “cryptographic engine 116 of aggregator node 110 decrypts the encrypted model parameters using the retained private key. Global model trainer 118 trains the global model by aggregating the decrypted model parameters, e.g., using FedAv. This concludes a training cycle.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the encryption federated learning system of Yin with the retraining of Dhumay to improve global model accuracy (Dhumay, [0113]). Yin and Dhumay are analogous art because they both concern federated learning.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin and 5G in further view of Khan et al. (A Survey on Security and Privacy of 5G Technologies: Potential Solutions, Recent Advancements and Future Directions); hereinafter Khan
Claim 18 is rejected over Yin, 5G and Khan with the incorporation of claim 13.
Regarding claim 18, Yin does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the message comprising an identity of a server, and
However, 5G teaches wherein the message comprising an identity of a server, and (5G Support [page 82, Figure 6.23.2-1]: See steps 3a-3b and associated description to see that the access and mobility management (AMF) is shown to be registered at the user equipments (UE) using the unified data management queries 3a. Nudm_UECM_Get (UE ID, AMF) and 3b. Nudm_UECM_Get Response (AMF ID))
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the encryption federated learning system of Yin with the AMF connectivity of 5G to effectively query or subscribe AMF to UE related events (5G, page 83). Yin and AMF are analogous art because they both concern federated learning.
Yin does not appear to explicitly teach an encryption key [associated with a federated learning operation] is received within a non-access stratum container.
However, Khan teaches an encryption key [associated with a federated learning operation] is received within a non-access stratum container. (Khan [page 18]: “The radio traffic is encrypted in 5G at the Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) layer [82]. Similar to that of 4G LTE network, three different 128-bit encryption keys are used for user plane, Non-Access Stratum (NAS) and Access Stratum (AS).”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the encryption federated learning system of Yin with the encryption keys in NAS of Khan for improved privacy protection in 5G (Khan, page 18, column 2). Yin and Khan are analogous art because they both concern encryption and security.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 5G, Wen and Yin.
Regarding claim 20, 5G teaches an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: (5G Support [page 82, Figure 6.23.2-1: Federated Learning Assistance Function])
provide, to a network function, an authorisation request for a federated learning operation, the authorisation request identifying a plurality of user equipments; (5G Support [page 82, Figure 6.23.2-1: Federated Learning Assistance Function]: “2. AIML_session Create Request (UE group, UE number per cycle, Desired location area, overall response time per cyde, expected UE response time per cycle, Input model size, output model size)”; and (“2. The AF tasks Federated Learning Assistance Function (which could be integrated in NEF, NWDAF or be standalone) to propose UEs for FL operation. The AF indicates a list or group of UEs to choose from, the number of UEs required to perform federated learning cycle, possibly a desired location of UEs in a form of a target area for FL, duration for iteration and desired average latency for FL iterations. When providing a target area for FL, the AF may provide sub-areas, and provide a percentage of UEs that should take part in FL from each sub-area, and/or a minimum number of UEs and /or a maximum number of UEs that should take part in FL from each sub-area. Optionally, the AF may provide time when to start federated learning, duration of federated learning, size of input model and/or output model. NOTE 2: Step 2 is shown as AIML _session Create Request, but step 2 could also be realized via an analytics request/ subscription with new analytics type.”; Note: The AF is acting as the AI/ML application server. The UE is user equipments.)
5G does not appear to explicitly teach in response to receiving a confirmation message, provide a machine learning model of the federated learning operation to at least two of the plurality of user equipments;
However, Wen teaches in response to receiving a confirmation message, provide a machine learning model of the federated learning operation to at least two of the plurality of user equipments; (Wen [page 3]: “If the authentication is successful, the server sends a Federated Learning token back to the client for use in the following client-server communication” and [page 4]: “GetModel Acquires the model of the current round from the server. The server checks the token, and sends back the global model to the client.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the federated learning system of 5G System Support Solution #23 and the federated learning token of Wen to establish trust between the client and server (Wen [page 7]). 5G and Wen are analogous art because they both concern federated learning.
5G does not appear to explicitly teach receive, from each of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments, encrypted model parameters associated with the machine learning model;
aggregate the encrypted model parameters from each of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments together.
However, Yin teaches receive, from each of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments, encrypted model parameters associated with the machine learning model; (Yin [page 2716, 2) Privacy Analysis: “The most significant feature of function encryption is that in the process of parameter aggregation, it can ensure that the server can only obtain the weighted average parameters of each client and cannot obtain a specific client’s parameters individually, thereby ensuring the privacy of the client parameters.”)
aggregate the encrypted model parameters from each of the at least two of the plurality of user equipments together. (Yin [page 2716, 2) Privacy Analysis: “The most significant feature of function encryption is that in the process of parameter aggregation, it can ensure that the server can only obtain the weighted average parameters of each client and cannot obtain a specific client’s parameters individually, thereby ensuring the privacy of the client parameters.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the federated learning system of 5G and the encryption technology of Yin to improve model performance and privacy (Yin, page 2715). 5G and Yin are analogous art because they both concern federated learning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID H TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Viker Lamardo can be reached at (571) 270-5871. 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.
/DAVID H TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2147
/VIKER A LAMARDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2147