DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communications: Completion of U.S. National Stage Entry requirements on December 21, 2023, and the Preliminary Amendment both filed on December 21, 2023. All references to this application refer to the U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0289636 A1.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-9 and 12-22 are pending in this case. Claims 10 and 11 were cancelled, and claims 12-22 were added via the Preliminary Amendment. Claims 1, 13, and 22 are the independent claims. Claims 1-9 and 12-22 are rejected.
Priority
This application is a U.S. National Stage Entry of PCT/CN2023/078224, filed on February 24, 2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Applicants have perfected benefit to Chinese Patent Application No. 202210249166.1, filed on March 14, 2022.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons:
The Specification includes flowchart steps/processes that are not presented in the drawings. See, e.g., Steps S401, S403 (paragraphs 0111-0121), S501, S503, S505 (paragraphs 0127-0134), S601, S603, S605, S607, S609 (paragraphs 0135-0144), S701, S703, and S705 (paragraphs 0148-0153).
These objections can be overcome in one of two ways.
First, new figures describing the flowchart steps/process could be submitted. This would also require additional new paragraphs describing these flowcharts in the “Brief Description of the Drawings” currently presented in paragraphs 0039-0044.
Second, the Specification can be amended to remove the flowchart steps/processes.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES
Replacement Drawing Sheets
Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement sheets which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 CFR 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments section, or remarks, section of the amendment paper. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). A replacement sheet must include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the Examiner, Applicants will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless Applicants are notified.
Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and within the top margin.
Annotated Drawing Sheets
A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the Examiner. The annotated drawing sheet(s) must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings.
Timing of Corrections
Applicants are required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.
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.
The following title is suggested: “METHOD, ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUM FOR TRAINING FEDERATED LEARNING MODEL USING A CONVEX LOSS FUNCTION WITHOUT INVERTED HESSIAN MATRICES”
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
As indicated above, the Specification includes flowchart steps/processes that are not presented in the drawings. See, e.g., Steps S401, S403, S501, S503, S505, S601, S603, S605, S607, S609, S701, S703, and S705. This can be corrected by amending the Specification to remove these flowchart steps or by including new figures as indicated above.
In paragraph 0061, the Specification recites “Therefore, there is no need to directly calculate the Heisenberg matrix H or the inverse matrix of the Heisenberg matrix, reducing data calculations and interactions.” It is believed that this should recite “Therefore, there is no need to directly calculate the Hessian matrix H or the inverse matrix of the Hessian matrix, reducing data calculations and interactions.”
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 2-7 and 14-19 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.
Dependent claims 2 and 14 recite the following: “wherein any participant device of the participant devices performing the predetermined number of rounds of interactive calculations with the rest of the participant devices using a bidirectional recursion approach and based on the model parameter variation and the gradient information variation to obtain the gradient search direction as the quasi-newton condition comprises” There is a lack of antecedent basis for “using a bidirectional recursion approach.” This introduces indefiniteness issues.
Accordingly, dependent claims 2 and 14 are rendered 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.
For the purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as providing the proper antecedent basis, either in the rejected claims, or being provided in the independent claims. To overcome these rejections, the Examiner recommends amending the claims as interpreted.
Dependent claims 3-7 and 15-19 are rejected solely due to their dependence on a rejected parent claim.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention, are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of amendments to these claims to correct the failure.
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 1-9 and 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With regard to claim 1,
Step 2A, Prong 1
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A method of training a federated learning model, comprising:
any participant device of participant devices performing joint encryption training with a rest of the participant devices based on a model parameter and feature information of the participant device, to obtain gradient information of the participant device;
any participant device of the participant devices acquiring a model parameter variation and a gradient information variation based on the model parameter and the gradient information, and performing a predetermined number of rounds of interactive calculations with the rest of the participant devices based on the model parameter variation and the gradient information variation, to obtain a gradient search direction of the participant device as a quasi-newton condition;
a target participant device of the participant devices acquiring a model loss function, and calculating step information based on the gradient search direction and the model loss function;
wherein the target participant device is a participant device having label information among the participant devices, and the model loss function is a convex function; and
any participant device of the participant devices updating the model parameter of the participant device based on the gradient search direction and the step information, until the federated learning model converges.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the bolded limitations above are directed to mathematical calculations for obtaining gradient information and performing iterative calculations to obtain gradient search direction and a convex model loss function. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)1.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Yes)
Step 2A, Prong 2
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The additional elements in this claim are the participant/target devices that form the federated learning system, the label information, the model parameters, and the training. These elements are recited at a high level of generality and thus is a generic computer component performing computer functions. Thus these are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination the additional element does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Yes).
Step 2B
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, the only additional elements are the participant/target devices that form the federated learning system, the label information, the model parameters, and the training which at best is mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas and cannot provide an inventive concept, even when considered in combination. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, this claim is similar to claim 2 of Example 47 of the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, which was determined to be ineligible.
Step 2B (Yes).
Claim 1 is ineligible.
With respect to independent claims 13 and 22,
These claims are similar in scope to Claim 1 and are rejected under a similar rationale. The processors and memory (recited in independent claim 13) and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (recited in independent claim 22) are also generic computing components.
Claims 13 and 22 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2-9, 12, and 14-21: These claims only recite further abstract ideas (mathematical calculations) and thus are ineligible.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 101, as relating to judicial exceptions without significantly more, are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of amendments to these claims to place them within the four statutory categories of invention.
Examiner’s Note
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 12-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicants’ 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).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The Examiner has carefully examined independent claims 1, 12, and 22. The closest prior art references of record are Non-Patent Literature Reference entitled “Robust Federated Learning in a Heterogeneous Environment,” by Ghosh et al., published at arXiv:1906.06629v2 on October 9, 2019 (hereinafter Ghosh), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0310643 A1, filed by Hardy et al., as a U.S. National Stage Entry of PCT/AU2015/050661 on April 24, 2017, and published on October 26, 2017 (hereinafter Hardy), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0089878 A1, filed by Greenewald et al., on September 20, 2019, and published on March 25, 2021 (hereinafter Greenewald), and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0325529 A1, filed by Sav et al., as a U.S. National Stage Entry of PCT/EP2020/074031 on February 27, 2023, and published on October 12, 2023 (hereinafter Sav)2.
Claims 1, 12, and 22 are indicated as allowable over Ghosh, Hardy, Greenewald, and Sav, at least because the cited combination of references does not teach or suggest the following limitations, recited in one form or another, by independent claims 1, 12, and 22:
…to obtain a gradient search direction of the participant device as a quasi-newton condition;
a target participant device of the participant devices acquiring a model loss function, and calculating step information based on the gradient search direction and the model loss function;
wherein the target participant device is a participant device having label information among the participant devices, and the model loss function is a convex function;
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure. See PTO-892.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ERIC J. BYCER whose telephone number is (571) 270-3741. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-6pm, and alternate Fridays 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, MATT ELL can be reached on (571) 270-3264. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ERIC J. BYCER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2141
1 “a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word ‘calculating’ in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of ‘determining’ a variable or number using mathematical methods or ‘performing’ a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)
2 Sav claims the benefit of PCT/EP2020/074031, filed August 27, 2020.
Prosecution Insights